When Genuises Are Certain

[David Sklansky]

I want to precisely define my position on this matter.

First of all my definition of genuis is about the normal one except I don't rate spatial relations, musical ability, or the like as a big part of the assessment. I'm talking about analytical ability. The ability to EASILY get a Phd in subjects like physics, logic, economics, or maybe even law. Not just pure math ability.

My next contention is that such a genuis is a monster favorite to be right when he disagrees with a merely intelligent person in the genuis's chosen field. I doubt that is debatable.

My more debatable contention is that the genuis is a rather big favorite over a moderately intelligent person even when he disagrees about fields outside his expertise, and even if the questions have not yet been decided. AS LONG AS:

1. The genuis has studied the field almost as hard as the other guy (which automatically counts me out even if I otherwise qualified.)

2. The genuis is almost certain about his conclusions (which almost certainly means he DID study the subject)

3. The genuis is not one of those idiot savant, can't tie, his shoe types.

4. The subject has a degree of logical thinking involved with it and doesn't require a lot of artistic type talent.

If those four criteria are met, then if you were able to bet on who was right between a random genuis, and a random, kind of smart, person, I say you could certainly lay a big price on the genuis. Exactly how big depends on the subject. But religion definitely is one of them.

[David Sklansky]

Here are three counterarguments. But for various reasons, not strong ones.

1. There might be a psychological bias. Thus if there were somehow good reasons to castrate all genuises and genuises disagreed with the reasoning, we might be less apt to trust them. (Religious people like to cling to this rationalization.)

2. Just because they are a favorite to be right doesn't mean they have to be right. (The problem with that point is that if many genuises all believe the same thing the price gets pretty high.)

3. As long as some genuises believe differently from the rest, lesser minds are free to take both sides. (Actually I would say they should just watch the debate. And if the overwhelming majority of the genuises believe one thing, I'll still lay a big price on them.)

[David Sklansky]

By the way this thread was spawned by references to Bertrand Russell. I feel persoanally insulted when people like Not Ready have the audacity to believe they have the right to think their differing opinions with him should be taken equally seriously about ANY subject that Russell studied and was certain about.

[KeysrSoze]

Whats a "genuis"? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[sexdrugsmoney]

I like how the first two replies are from the OP and are exactly 15 minutes apart.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The genuis has studied the field almost as hard as the other guy (which automatically counts me out even if I otherwise qualified.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key factor in this question. I am acquainted with several theology professors in Catholic seminaries who would meet the criteria you gave as many of them were late vocations to the priesthood and had advanced degrees in many of those subjects listed although not physics. However it is obvious that the most intelligent theologians in any religion have often studied each other's competing doctrines and maintain differing views on what is the true religion.

The real problem in studying religion hard is that the major religions were all founded in the distant past and often not really all that much original material exists from that time to be studied, even if one does devote the effort to study them in the original languages. So at best, a probability can only be given based on the evidence that is extant, which really might not be enough upon which to make a sound judgement when a religion's scriptures and oral tradition are not taken on their face to be true, and neither is the personal experiences of believers credited as such can't be proven.

I also believe psychological bias does indeed play a significant part in the opposition of emminent people in certain fields to religion, not just because they might have a pre-existing bias against religion per se, but because so many theoreticians have been seen in the history of science to be wedded to long held views in their own fields when significant new evidence to the contrary emerges but not yet to the degree of 100% certainty through empirical results.

[Darryl_P]

Bobby Fischer's IQ has been shown to be 190 or thereabouts and he believes the Jews are solely to blame for everything that's evil in the world.

What if I were to get offended by someone daring to claim expertise on the same issue (that he has also studied extensively), who had a much lower IQ (say 130-140 or so)?

Would that be OK?

I see what you're getting at, but I think you're wrong. What do the most intelligent experts in the world agree on when it comes to the biggest questions of life, the universe, and the supernatural? From what I've seen they only agree on things which have been empirically proven beyond reasonable doubt. Which doesn't say much.

"I don't rate spatial relations...as a big part of the assessment"

Did you flunk that part of your test? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[DougShrapnel]

The only question is why haven't you named this line of reason after yourself? Sklanskytocracy. Democracy is a serioius waste of time for the majority of people, when more likely correct soulutions would be found just by polling the genuises.

[calmasahinducow]

You underrate psychological bias but I still agree with your argument.

edit: Are you drunk?

[snappo]

[ QUOTE ]
Bobby Fischer's IQ has been shown to be 190 or thereabouts and he believes the Jews are solely to blame for everything that's evil in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

probably "reasonably sane" or something along those lines could be added on sklanksly's list. nonetheless if that is your best counterargument i think you are confirming sklansky's point.

[ QUOTE ]
Bobby Fischer's IQ has been shown to be 190 or thereabouts and he believes the Jews are solely to blame for everything that's evil in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe you. You must provide me with proof of such a belief. When did Bobby Fischer say this and please give me a reference as this is of great interest to me.

[snappo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bobby Fischer's IQ has been shown to be 190 or thereabouts and he believes the Jews are solely to blame for everything that's evil in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe you. You must provide me with proof of such a belief. When did Bobby Fischer say this and please give me a reference as this is of great interest to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is not certain that his IQ was 180.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer :

"According to school records, he has an I.Q. of 180 and an "incredibly retentive memory.""

[Darryl_P]

From a 1999 radio interview:

------------------------------------

Bobby Fischer: I intend to do what I'm doing right now.
Pablo Mercado: What?
Bobby Fischer: Which is to expose the Jews for the criminals they are, the parasites they are, the liars they are, the thieves they are, the niggers (?) they are.
Pablo Mercado: You speak like an Arab.
Bobby Fischer: .. You ask the Palestinians. I was just listening to the BBC. the horror story that come out of there when you get into an Israeli prison. the way they torture you . it's unheard of. I was listening to a Palestinian woman, a Christian woman from Palestine, not even Muslims, Christian women who were anti-Israel. They got picked up by the Israeli police, taken down to the jail, and then the Israeli police tried to get information -- Who do you know among your friends that's anti-Israel? Give us all the names of your Arab, Christian friends who are anti-Israel. When they refused, they put the women in a cell, these are mothers, these women, mostly. They put em in a cell, and then they start playing, in Arabic, on the loudspeaker, 24 hours a day, "Mommy, come home, Mommy, we miss you" in Arabic. They played it over and over again until the women just collapsed.
Pablo Mercado: All right, do you have any.
Bobby Fischer: This is the Jewish mentality. These are a criminal people. They torture their prisoners in the worst way. It's even illegal! They don't even deny it hardly. Jews were always bastards throughout history. They are liars, they are the worst pieces of [censored] in the world. They mutilate their own children.
Pablo Mercado: all right.
Bobby Fischer: [censored] the Jews.

------------------------------------------

http://www.ishipress.com/fischer1.htm

Maybe he didn't say it EXACTLY as I said, but the general idea is evident.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I feel persoanally insulted when people like Not Ready have the audacity to believe they have the right to think their differing opinions with him should be taken equally seriously about ANY subject that Russell studied and was certain about.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll debate Russell anytime, anywhere on religion as long as he tries to stand by the garbage he wrote in Why I'm Not a Christian. Anyone with an IQ above 100 could trounce him on the idiotic things he said there.

He wins any math contest.

I agree, NotReady.

[chezlaw]

I agree. I particularly agree with this;

[ QUOTE ]
I don't rate spatial relations

[/ QUOTE ]
This really sticks out, most people seem to think they are a vital part of intelligence, can you tell us why.

I agree because I have almost no spatial skills although, of course, I'm not a genius.

Russell was a genius by your definition and he claimed he had very poor spatial skills.

Care to explain why spatial skills don't matter or is it just because of the evidence of people like Russell?


chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll debate Russell anytime, anywhere on religion as long as he tries to stand by the garbage he wrote in Why I'm Not a Christian. Anyone with an IQ above 100 could trounce him on the idiotic things he said there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a poor subsitute, but I'll take the part of Russell if you like. I'll try to stick to what Russell might have meant by what he said, which may not be the same as what you think he meant.

I'm not saying I agree with what he says but it might be interesting to debate it. It will have to be after I finish with the 'my problem with some religons' thread.

Fancy it?

chez

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll debate Russell anytime, anywhere on religion as long as he tries to stand by the garbage he wrote in Why I'm Not a Christian. Anyone with an IQ above 100 could trounce him on the idiotic things he said there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a poor subsitute, but I'll take the part of Russell if you like. I'll try to stick to what Russell might have meant by what he said, which may not be the same as what you think he meant.

I'm not saying I agree with what he says but it might be interesting to debate it. It will have to be after I finish with the 'my problem with some religons' thread.

Fancy it?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

*Buys his ticket in the front row and opens bag of popcorn* /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
By the way this thread was spawned by references to Bertrand Russell. I feel persoanally insulted when people like Not Ready have the audacity to believe they have the right to think their differing opinions with him should be taken equally seriously about ANY subject that Russell studied and was certain about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I feel persoanally insulted when people like Not Ready have the audacity to believe they have the right to think their differing opinions with him should be taken equally seriously about ANY subject that Russell studied and was certain about.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll debate Russell anytime, anywhere on religion as long as he tries to stand by the garbage he wrote in Why I'm Not a Christian. Anyone with an IQ above 100 could trounce him on the idiotic things he said there.

He wins any math contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hah! Based on NotReady's posts, I would have paid money to watch BR run circles around him.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll debate Russell anytime, anywhere on religion as long as he tries to stand by the garbage he wrote in Why I'm Not a Christian. Anyone with an IQ above 100 could trounce him on the idiotic things he said there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a poor subsitute, but I'll take the part of Russell if you like. I'll try to stick to what Russell might have meant by what he said, which may not be the same as what you think he meant.

I'm not saying I agree with what he says but it might be interesting to debate it. It will have to be after I finish with the 'my problem with some religons' thread.

Fancy it?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

"Why I'm Not A Christian" or anything he wrote on the history of Western Philosophy is not really taken seriously by students of Western Philosophy. His "genius" is not in the field of religion, ethics, or history.

I also don't think Sklansky would argue that "Why I am not A Christian" is a good book. I don't think it is anything that a 10th grader in the States could not understand. I am also not saying that I think he is "wrong" or "right" in these essays.

craig

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why I'm Not A Christian" or anything he wrote on the history of Western Philosophy is not really taken seriously by students of Western Philosophy. His "genius" is not in the field of religion, ethics, or history.

I also don't think Sklansky would argue that "Why I am not A Christian" is a good book. I don't think it is anything that a 10th grader in the States could not understand. I am also not saying that I think he is "wrong" or "right" in these essays.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and wouldn't judge Russell much on the basis of a, probably hastily prepared, lecture to a friendly audience.

Against that, he clearly put some thought into theology, studied religous philosophy and was brought up as a christian.

It seems generally agreed that the older he got the stranger some of the writings but at 50ish I doubt he said anything stupid. (he did live to nearly 100)

chez

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Why I'm Not A Christian" or anything he wrote on the history of Western Philosophy is not really taken seriously by students of Western Philosophy. His "genius" is not in the field of religion, ethics, or history.

I also don't think Sklansky would argue that "Why I am not A Christian" is a good book. I don't think it is anything that a 10th grader in the States could not understand. I am also not saying that I think he is "wrong" or "right" in these essays.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and wouldn't judge Russell much on the basis of a, probably hastily prepared, lecture to a friendly audience.

Against that, he clearly put some thought into theology, studied religous philosophy and was brought up as a christian.

It seems generally agreed that the older he got the stranger some of the writings but at 50ish I doubt he said anything stupid. (he did live to nearly 100)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with you. I was just saying that his "genius" is in other areas of Philosophy. Even his political ideas (generally on the far left) are not taken seriously (but probably more seriously than his ideas on religion).

craig

[ QUOTE ]
I agree and wouldn't judge Russell much on the basis of a, probably hastily prepared, lecture to a friendly audience.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that the book was a lecture is a good point. I think the book avoids many better arguments that are more esoteric and philosophical in nature, but these concepts may be tougher to convey orally to a general audience.

[ QUOTE ]
Bobby Fischer's IQ has been shown to be 190 or thereabouts and he believes the Jews are solely to blame for everything that's evil in the world.

What if I were to get offended by someone daring to claim expertise on the same issue (that he has also studied extensively), who had a much lower IQ (say 130-140 or so)?

Would that be OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting that no one else was able to come up with an example of a genius going against the tide. I guess Sklansky has got something here but this particular case seems to have scared him away from the thread. I wonder why.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bobby Fischer's IQ has been shown to be 190 or thereabouts and he believes the Jews are solely to blame for everything that's evil in the world.

What if I were to get offended by someone daring to claim expertise on the same issue (that he has also studied extensively), who had a much lower IQ (say 130-140 or so)?

Would that be OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting that no one else was able to come up with an example of a genius going against the tide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chomsky? Einstein? I know there is a lot about Chomsky's linguistics that post-structuralists will dispute, but he still revolutionized the field.

craig

[David Sklansky]

I only glanced at Why I am Not a Christian. I think I remember reading his dissatisfaction with the sexual teachings of Christianity and I remember thinking that that has nothing to do with anything.

The point I was making related more to religion in general and the fact that the vast majority of gifted analytical people who study the subject would say that any specific religion is much much more likely to be wrong than right.

Spatial relations is an important part of intelligence. It is not an important part of analyzing arguments.

Bobby Fisher is disqualified by my own critera.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bobby Fischer's IQ has been shown to be 190 or thereabouts and he believes the Jews are solely to blame for everything that's evil in the world.

What if I were to get offended by someone daring to claim expertise on the same issue (that he has also studied extensively), who had a much lower IQ (say 130-140 or so)?

Would that be OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting that no one else was able to come up with an example of a genius going against the tide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chomsky? Einstein? I know there is a lot about Chomsky's linguistics that post-structuralists will dispute, but he still revolutionized the field.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

craig,

Can you translate what you just said for the layman (me). Just a brief discription of what you said and what (who) refers to what?

Thanks,

RJT

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bobby Fischer's IQ has been shown to be 190 or thereabouts and he believes the Jews are solely to blame for everything that's evil in the world.

What if I were to get offended by someone daring to claim expertise on the same issue (that he has also studied extensively), who had a much lower IQ (say 130-140 or so)?

Would that be OK?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting that no one else was able to come up with an example of a genius going against the tide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chomsky? Einstein? I know there is a lot about Chomsky's linguistics that post-structuralists will dispute, but he still revolutionized the field.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

craig,

Can you translate what you just said for the layman (me). Just a brief discription of what you said and what (who) refers to what?

Thanks,

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not get far enough in my philosophy studies to completely understand "structuralism" (though I am sure there are people on here that could explain it). But, Noam Chomsky is considered a genius (technically..not just by his peers or philosophers), who not only changed the entire field of linguistics (his basic premise was that humans were genetically predetermined to "learn" language..obviously it is more complicated than this). But, he was also an activist in the 60's and has written (and is still writing) countless books on American foreign policy. He is also an anarchist (by his own admission, so this is also up for debate). He was very respected (whether one agrees with him or not) in the field of linguistics, just like Russell was in the field of Math and Logis. And just like Russell who "went against the grain" he also did. Also, not suprisingly, Chomsky still has a poster on his wall in his office, where he teaches at MIT, of Bertrand Russell. He is also the 6th most cited person in the humanities (I can't remember if the Bible or Marx is #1).

The reason I mentioned Einstein (another genius) was because he was very much behind the Atom bomb, but later apologized and was somewhat a "peace" activist.

craig

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Fancy it?


[/ QUOTE ]

No thanks. I wasn't looking for a debate. DS said I disagree with Russell on any subject, which I never said. All I ever said about Bertie is how stupid his anti-Christian book is, and I may have quoted him with approval concerning his agreement with Hume about induction.

My post was mostly to re-iterate the poor quality of Russell's book, which I think DS agrees with, which makes me wonder why he had to drag me in to his tri-post.

I have no doubt any real issue Russell touched on will eventually come up. We can cross swords then.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Fancy it?


[/ QUOTE ]

No thanks. I wasn't looking for a debate. DS said I disagree with Russell on any subject, which I never said. All I ever said about Bertie is how stupid his anti-Christian book is, and I may have quoted him with approval concerning his agreement with Hume about induction.

My post was mostly to re-iterate the poor quality of Russell's book, which I think DS agrees with, which makes me wonder why he had to drag me in to his tri-post.

I have no doubt any real issue Russell touched on will eventually come up. We can cross swords then.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Drops popcorn, picks up chair, and throws it at Not Ready*

This is how soccer riots begin you know? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[scalf]

umlatoo and o: bingo

lol

gl

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[theBruiser500]

Hey Dave, this is a really good post. I never thought about things your way before, I will be thinking about this point for a while now. Anyway, keep up the good work in the "Science, Math, and Philosophy" forum, what you say is so thought provoking, great stuff, keep it coming!!

[Cyrus]

People who think better at things that require better thinking are usually better thinkers than people who do not think better at things in general.

What an epiphany.

[andyfox]

Sometimes, though, geniuses don't use language as precisely as they might have and that those of us who are less than geniuses might have some trouble understanding exactly what they're saying. I, for one, then, am glad David precisely defined his position on the issue.

[MaxPowerPoker]

The problem with laying a big price on the genius is that the truth of the Christian gospel is not a *purely* intellectual matter.

If the Bible is true in what it claims about humanity, God and the need for redemption (a proposition that most here would not affirm) then there would be other, more important factors to consider besides intelligence.

Scripture's claims are clear. The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit, namely the gospel (that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, was raised and those who put their faith in him will be delivered/saved). Not only does scripture claim that the natural man (intelligent or not) DOES not accept the gospel. It claims that he CANNOT.

[ QUOTE ]
1Co 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
1Co 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.[3]
1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(Joh 6:44 ESV) No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
(Joh 6:45 ESV) It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me --


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(2Co 4:4 ESV) In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

(2Co 4:5 ESV) For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants[2] for Jesus' sake.

(2Co 4:6 ESV) For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(1Jo 5:20 ESV) And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.


[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with laying a big price on the genius is that the truth of the Christian gospel is not a *purely* intellectual matter.

If the Bible is true in what it claims about humanity, God and the need for redemption (a proposition that most here would not affirm) then there would be other, more important factors to consider besides intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would confirm the view that religous belief isn't rational, wouldn't it?

Which genius might disagree with the idea that non-rational beliefs aren't rational?

chez

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
That would confirm the view that religous belief isn't rational, wouldn't it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Just because an otherwise rational being does not accept the truth of the gospel does not mean that it is irrational to believe. To the contrary.

Another glimpse into the mind of fallen humanity:


[ QUOTE ]
(Rom 1:18 ESV) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

(Rom 1:19 ESV) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

(Rom 1:20 ESV) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

(Rom 1:21 ESV) For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.


[/ QUOTE ]

The key there is "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

In order to keep living like they want to, they suppress the truths about God because if they acknowledge that God's word is true, that has a dramatic effect on how they live and quite frankly they like their life just the way it is, thank you very much.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That would confirm the view that religous belief isn't rational, wouldn't it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Just because an otherwise rational being does not accept the truth of the gospel does not mean that it is irrational to believe. To the contrary.

Another glimpse into the mind of fallen humanity:


[ QUOTE ]
(Rom 1:18 ESV) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

(Rom 1:19 ESV) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

(Rom 1:20 ESV) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

(Rom 1:21 ESV) For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.


[/ QUOTE ]

The key there is "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

In order to keep living like they want to, they suppress the truths about God because if they acknowledge that God's word is true, that has a dramatic effect on how they live and quite frankly they like their life just the way it is, thank you very much.

[/ QUOTE ]

em, okay, thanks very much.

chez

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
em, okay, thanks very much.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume your comments are meant to be dismissive. It might make you feel better, but it does not further the discussion. But maybe that was not your aim. Seems like a waste of your time to even bother to reply if that's all you have to say.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
em, okay, thanks very much.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume your comments are meant to be dismissive. It might make you feel better, but it does not further the discussion. But maybe that was not your aim. Seems like a waste of your time to even bother to reply if that's all you have to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what to say. I think I'm seeking truth and you claim I'm supressing the truth. The only argument you give for your view is quotes from a book I don't believe the truth of.

If you can suggest a rational method of going forward from there then I'm happy to give it a go.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
em, okay, thanks very much.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume your comments are meant to be dismissive. It might make you feel better, but it does not further the discussion. But maybe that was not your aim. Seems like a waste of your time to even bother to reply if that's all you have to say.

[/ QUOTE ]


Max,

I think chez took your words “thank you very much” as if you were saying them. They were part of your thought. You meant that “they” were saying “I like my life how it is, thank you very much.” He took it as you quoting they: “I like my life how it is.” And adding your own words “Thank you very much, chez.”

The idiomatic expression that is obvious to us “colonist” got lost in the translation to the King’s English, I think.

RJT

[RJT]

chez & Max,


Does this clear things? Or at least point out if you are even debating over the same point or not?

The noun “belief”, in the context we are using it, is by definition (loosely speaking) an irrational thing. If a belief were a rational thing then it would be a logical thing. If it were logical, it could be reasoned out. If it could be reasoned out, it could be either proved/disproved or at least a theory could be developed that most (all) could agree to its almost certitude. (Then it wouldn’t be a belief in the first place. Faith makes no sense with evidence. With evidence it is no longer faith.)

The verb “to believe” is a subjective action. Once can believe, not believe, and have various degrees of belief/non beliefs. *

One choosing to believe does not necessarily mean the person is making an irrational action. (Maybe it does and this is your debate.) He might be choosing an irrational thing (the particular Faith or any faith for that matter) . But the action of choosing does not necessarily make that act(choosing) an irrational act.


*Unlike Seinfeld’s grace (not the Grace that Christians talk about). Seinfeld’s grace according to the woman character talking to Elaine “You either have grace or you don’t. There are no degrees of grace. Jackie O. had grace.” It was funny , if you saw it on TV there over the pond, chez.

RJT

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
em, okay, thanks very much.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume your comments are meant to be dismissive. It might make you feel better, but it does not further the discussion. But maybe that was not your aim. Seems like a waste of your time to even bother to reply if that's all you have to say.

[/ QUOTE ]


Max,

I think chez took your words “thank you very much” as if you were saying them. They were part of your thought. You meant that “they” were saying “I like my life how it is, thank you very much.” He took it as you quoting they: “I like my life how it is.” And adding your own words “Thank you very much, chez.”

The idiomatic expression that is obvious to us “colonist” got lost in the translation to the King’s English, I think.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Very observant. After reading it again, I think I could have been clearer.

The issue still remains that chez does not regard the words of scripture the way I and other Christians do. The truth of scripture is outside the scope of the topic posted. My goal in my posts has simply been to enter into the record what the Bible has to say about the topic. That is all. I do, however believe what the Bible has to say about whatever it speaks on. Again, I think that fact is outside the scope of the immediate discussion.

[RJT]

Regardless, I agree with what I think is Max’s point. Rather, I’ll just say it my own way.

Whether or not choosing to believe what I do is rational or not, I still chose to believe. One can call me foolish if one wishes. Doesn’t bother me at all.

A few reasons I choose to believe what I do:

1) I like the concept of my Faith.
2) I think the quality of my life with my faith is better than the quality I would have without it. This is purely subjective.
3) The benefit out weights the cost. (for this life this is restating 2 - for after that, might sound like I am
hedging my bets. There is more to it than that.)

If I had stronger faith, I could talk about the direct benefit of being close to God and all. Not really there like some are already. So I can't add this as #4.

Sorry for the hijack of the OP, but Max and chez started it.

[chezlaw]

In part you've got it right but you're being a bit too charitable towards me. A part of the thank you is a sarcastic Monty Pythonesque response to being told I am fallen:
'ooo me, thanks very much'


The stuff on belief is interesting, maybe another thread. Not a matter of whose right or wrong but I mean something different by belief.
[ QUOTE ]
One choosing to believe does not necessarily mean the person is making an irrational action. (Maybe it does and this is your debate.) He might be choosing an irrational thing (the particular Faith or any faith for that matter) . But the action of choosing does not necessarily make that act(choosing) an irrational act.

[/ QUOTE ]
Belief as I understand it cannot be chosen. If other people mean something that can be chosen then we really are talking at cross purposes. Resolve this issue and maybe we can understand each other.

Are you going to continue your help in clarifying the 'problem with some religons' thread or has my English defeated even you?

chez

[ QUOTE ]
A few reasons I choose to believe what I do:

1) I like the concept of my Faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, who doesn't get a warm fuzzy believing they are part of the chosen few beings for which the universe was created, you are selected for eternal life as a reward for your wisdom, and this all-powerful being is gushing with love for you.

For these same reasons, I choose to believe in The FSM.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A few reasons I choose to believe what I do:

1) I like the concept of my Faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, who doesn't get a warm fuzzy believing they are part of the chosen few beings for which the universe was created, you are selected for eternal life as a reward for your wisdom, and this all-powerful being is gushing with love for you.

For these same reasons, I choose to believe in The FSM.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement simply confirms you know practically nothing about my religion. (Even less about me, but like I said “Does not bother me at all”; and definitely not germane to the topic).

I am confident that it is not even an iota of the caveat that the OP referred to as “…has studied the field...”

Btw, what is The FSM?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The issue still remains that chez does not regard the words of scripture the way I and other Christians do. The truth of scripture is outside the scope of the topic posted. My goal in my posts has simply been to enter into the record what the Bible has to say about the topic. That is all. I do, however believe what the Bible has to say about whatever it speaks on. Again, I think that fact is outside the scope of the immediate discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Max, reading this makes it clear that I misunderstood your post. To be honest, I still don't understand your point but it certainly wasn't what I thought it was.

Sorry, for the confusion.

chez

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Max, reading this makes it clear that I misunderstood your post. To be honest, I still don't understand your point but it certainly wasn't what I thought it was.

Sorry, for the confusion.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not claim to be a great communicator. Let me try again. The OP postulated that you could lay a big price on a genius to be right in the area of religion. Here's my point. The Bible has something to say about who is right and it has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with the nature of man and the role of the Spirit of God.

The following is what the Christian Bible says about this subject:

Man by nature suppresses the truth about God (Romans 1). Man by nature does not accept the gospel...they cannot/are unable to (1 Corinthians 2). God reveals truth through his Spirit, making the natural man a spiritual man.

So my point is simply to show *from a biblical perspective* that when you are considering laying a price on a genius to be right in the area of religion, you should take into account whether the man is a natural man who suppresses the truth, or is he a spiritual man who has been taught by God.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So my point is simply to show *from a biblical perspective* that when you are considering laying a price on a genius to be right in the area of religion, you should take into account whether the man is a natural man who suppresses the truth, or is he a spiritual man who has been taught by God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I correct to understand that to mean:

If the bible is right (about the natural man /spiritual man)then you need to take account of whether the genius speaking about religon is a natural man or a spiritual man, and that in some way the natural man is less rational

chez

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I correct to understand that to mean:

If the bible is right (about the natural man /spiritual man)then you need to take account of whether the genius speaking about religon is a natural man or a spiritual man, and that in some way the natural man is less rational

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to the truth about God, yes. When it comes to the truth about whether to fold, raise or call, I'll go with Sklansky any day.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I correct to understand that to mean:

If the bible is right (about the natural man /spiritual man)then you need to take account of whether the genius speaking about religon is a natural man or a spiritual man, and that in some way the natural man is less rational

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to the truth about God, yes. When it comes to the truth about whether to fold, raise or call, I'll go with Sklansky any day.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I understand. So a natural man type genius could be correct to conclude some religous belief isn't rational (by his standard of rationality) even though the religous belief is correct.

chez

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]

I think I understand. So a natural man type genius could be correct to conclude some religous belief isn't rational (by his standard of rationality) even though the religous belief is correct.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That sentence makes my head hurt. How can someone be correct to conclude that something that is true is irrational? I can't imagine that such a thing is possible.

I think though, that you are close to understanding my point. The natural man may be perfectly rational and correct in all manner of endeavors. When it comes to the truth about the things of God, his otherwise impeccable rationale is corrupt.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
That sentence makes my head hurt. How can someone be correct to conclude that something that is true is irrational? I can't imagine that such a thing is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not rational rather than irrational. I mean that, given the logical tools he has, it is impossible to reach the correct conclusion.

Anyway, I think we understand each other. You will understand why, being a natural man myself, I have no reason to believe your claim is true and no method of proving it false.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ The Bible has something to say about who is right and it has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with the nature of man and the role of the Spirit of God.

The following is what the Christian Bible says about this subject:

Man by nature suppresses the truth about God (Romans 1). Man by nature does not accept the gospel...they cannot/are unable to (1 Corinthians 2). God reveals truth through his Spirit, making the natural man a spiritual man.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lets assume that your premises are true:

Each book of the Bible was written by a man who by his very nature suppresses the truth about God.

Each version of the Bible ever compilled, and there are thousands of differing texts, were compilled by men who by their natures suppress the truth about God.

Furthermore why even bother to argue about the nature of men, natural or spiritual. If your going to tell me that the Bible is correct, which you have to in order for your analysis of mans nature to hold any water, why not just give me some passages that show that there is God rather than leading us on this roundabout way to Him. Uhhh, maybe thats not so clear. In other words, if your gonna tell us that Einstein, Russell, Hawkins, Sklansky, and all the other smarties cant tell us the truth about religion because the Bible says that they dont have it in them, why not just say theyre wrong because the Bible says there is a God. It would save us all these unnecessary steps.

[KidPokerX]

Good thought - love reading the posts david!

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ The Bible has something to say about who is right and it has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with the nature of man and the role of the Spirit of God.

The following is what the Christian Bible says about this subject:

Man by nature suppresses the truth about God (Romans 1). Man by nature does not accept the gospel...they cannot/are unable to (1 Corinthians 2). God reveals truth through his Spirit, making the natural man a spiritual man.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lets assume that your premises are true:

Each book of the Bible was written by a man who by his very nature suppresses the truth about God.

Each version of the Bible ever compilled, and there are thousands of differing texts, were compilled by men who by their natures suppress the truth about God.


[/ QUOTE ]

True that man by nature suppresses the truth. The fact is though that the men who wrote the Bible were no longer natural men. They had received the Spirit of God making them spiritual men. Further,

(2Pe 1:21) For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

and

(2Ti 3:16) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,(2Ti 3:17) that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.


[ QUOTE ]

if your gonna tell us that Einstein, Russell, Hawkins, Sklansky, and all the other smarties cant tell us the truth about religion because the Bible says that they dont have it in them, why not just say theyre wrong because the Bible says there is a God. It would save us all these unnecessary steps.

[/ QUOTE ]

That the Bible says there is a God is not news. It's clear to everyone (Sklansky, Russell, whoever) that the Bible says there is a God. Read the first verse to get that. What probably is/was not clear to them is what the Bible has to say about the nature of man and the need for the Spirit of God.

[Shandrax]

If we make a difference between a genius and a "normal" person, then the next step would be to talk about equality.

Since humans have different abilities, should they all be treated equal? For instance, should we sacrifice the life of two or three idiots to save a genius from death? Forced organ donation maybe? If we rate the genius to be important or more important than the average person, what is the conclusion?

[David Sklansky]

If keeping a genius alive saves many lives, there is nothing wrong with allowing a few to die to accomplish that goal. But that doesn't mean anything. There were probably times the same calculation was used where the word "genius" was replaced with the word "horse".

[MaxPowerPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore why even bother to argue about the nature of men, natural or spiritual. If your going to tell me that the Bible is correct, which you have to in order for your analysis of mans nature to hold any water, why not just give me some passages that show that there is God rather than leading us on this roundabout way to Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I addressed the first portion of your message to my satisfaction (and hopefully to yours), I do not think I did a great job with the quoted portion above.

The Bible does not argue for the existence of God. It does contain ridiculing statements for those who say God does not exist:

Psa 14:1 and 53:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

The Bible's position is that everyone knows there is a God. As I have already quoted from Romans 1:18-20, men suppress the truths about God. These truths are plainly seen to them by what is created. So you are going to have a hard time finding a convincing argument in Scripture for the existence of God simply because such an argument (according to scripture) is not necessary.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
then if you were able to bet on who was right between a random genuis, and a random, kind of smart, person, I say you could certainly lay a big price on the genuis. Exactly how big depends on the subject. But religion definitely is one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming the motive of the "genius" was pure.

[Warren Whitmore]

When a genuis is certain he ceases to be a genuis.

[lautzutao]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about analytical ability. The ability to EASILY get a Phd in subjects like physics, logic, economics, or maybe even law. Not just pure math ability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this is a very good description of genius. I personally define genius as someone who creates a fundamental or profound change in their field. Sometimes the change or thought is so profound that it is seen as absurd by its contemporaries...

In this definition, I don't think that I could put money on the genius if we had a "panel" judging the debate. If other contemporaries scoffed at the "geniuses" ideas, would they accept any logical argument on a subject that the "genius" put forth in his/her particular field?

[Dr. StrangeloveX]

appeal to authority. appeal to popular sentiment.

[threeonefour]

[ QUOTE ]


2. Just because they are a favorite to be right doesn't mean they have to be right. (The problem with that point is that if many genuises all believe the same thing the price gets pretty high.)

3. As long as some genuises believe differently from the rest, lesser minds are free to take both sides. (Actually I would say they should just watch the debate. And if the overwhelming majority of the genuises believe one thing, I'll still lay a big price on them.)

[/ QUOTE ]


you are basically describing the delphi technique. no need to reinvent the wheel