Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-14-2005, 02:11 AM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: Sklansky\'s Intelligence Weighting as it Relates to God

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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-14-2005, 03:08 AM
Timer Timer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 128
Default Re: Sklansky\'s Intelligence Weighting as it Relates to God

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-14-2005, 03:19 AM
benkahuna benkahuna is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: Sklansky\'s Intelligence Weighting as it Relates to God

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 , "Everyone needs to believe in something."
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-14-2005, 03:24 AM
Cyrus Cyrus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Tundra
Posts: 1,720
Default Total Recall

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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-14-2005, 09:43 AM
RJT RJT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 111
Default Re: Sklansky\'s Intelligence Weighting as it Relates to God

[ QUOTE ]

I believe a need to find some faith (not necessarily a religious faith) is part of human nature. From
Broken Saints , "Everyone needs to believe in something."

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.