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.