Philosophy Now Forum

Skip wrote:There hasn't been a valid comparison has there?

The problem is, most people start out with a given set of genetic predispositions and capacities. But they're helpless infants, at the mercy of their environment, which is dominated by adults with firmly-established belief systems, into which they are determined to form, knead, mold and otherwise reconfigure their offspring. Most of us haven't been given the choice of religions, or freedom from religion, or any freedom of thought, until we're strong enough to fight off the authorities who tell us what to believe. For most children, that's not before the late teens - for the majority, it's never. Starting with that kind of handicap, I would expect only the toughest, most independent, most determined minds to shake off their early indoctrination completely. So what we're comparing is the exceptional to the average - it's no surprise if they score higher.

The only way to tell whether religion aids or hinders the development of intelligence and creativity, is to conduct a rigorous study. Start with a large pool of newborns, randomly selected from all socio-ethnic backgrounds. We'd have to raise at least one group, but preferably several, in strictly religious families and communities, a strictly atheist group, and a control group wholly free from any suggestion of religion or the supernatural - each group isolated not only from the others, but also from a society full of competing folklores.

In 20 years, we'd have a pretty good idea. (and maybe a macroscope)

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Who would you choose the get the short straw and live in the fundamentalist community?

And how would you ensure that the atheist groups did not just replace religious indoctrination with some other thing such as patriotism which may also have the power to restrict thinking and creativity?

Actually history has sort of done the experiment in a limited way, and in ways that is contestable. But nonetheless, period of religious fracture such as the Reformation was followed by the flowering of what they like to call the Enlightenment, and much work has been done to show the forms of thinking that Protestantism opened up.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote: BTW, your intelligence is innate, and can only be enhanced, I really don't see how it can be diminished by your experiences as a young person. Everything you learn only adds to the store of knowledge you have, I don't believe that the human mind is as limited as once believed.

I'm really shocked that you say that.
Intelligence has to be trained and nurtured, or like a plant without food in never grows. It's not just about the innate propensity adding knowledge. There are key stages in human development, that if not offered the right stimulus will never grow.
Feral children, missing the language stage will remain mute till their death regardless of any effort to get them to communicate with words.
If you take a quick look into child psychology and development it will not take you long to see that I am right.
Your early experience, especially the first 7 years is of vital importance to your future development.
Scarred for life, is no joke.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:"I am so smart! I am so smart! S-M-R-T... I mean S-M-A-R-T!"

Is Homer Simpson an atheist, or merely as 'S-M-R-T' as one?

Atheists are one-hit wonders that have swapped illusions of sacredness, and protecting that sacredness with the subversion myth that religionists are at the heart of the world's woes, and that, if only they could be converted or relegated to the dustbin, humanity could march on to it's future glory. Sound like a familiar story?

Yes, you Theist keep on using this old nutshell of a straw man. You dig it out at the slightest excuse, again, and again. So yes the story is very familiar.
THe only difference is, on this occasion is that you have expressed the straw man in a pseudo-intellectual way that sounds clever but does not really mean anything. I mean, really, did you really want to say this;"that have swapped illusions of sacredness, and protecting that sacredness with the subversion myth".

Are you implying that sacredness is an illusion (some progress here from you maybe) that atheists have swapped for some thing: you did not say what, btw. What sacredness are they protecting? And what is a subversion myth you say they are using to protect it?

Atheists are not promising glory or anything like it. They are witness to the destructive force of religion which peddles lies though, so much is obvious. The trick is not to just put yet another belief system in its place, like nationalism, patriotism, ad nauseam. These too are religions of a kind that are also destructive. And show the folly in dogma and unfounded reason.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote: BTW, your intelligence is innate, and can only be enhanced, I really don't see how it can be diminished by your experiences as a young person. Everything you learn only adds to the store of knowledge you have, I don't believe that the human mind is as limited as once believed.

I'm really shocked that you say that.
Intelligence has to be trained and nurtured, or like a plant without food in never grows. It's not just about the innate propensity adding knowledge. There are key stages in human development, that if not offered the right stimulus will never grow.
Feral children, missing the language stage will remain mute till their death regardless of any effort to get them to communicate with words.
If you take a quick look into child psychology and development it will not take you long to see that I am right.
Your early experience, especially the first 7 years is of vital importance to your future development.
Scarred for life, is no joke.

It's not so shocking, the nature vs. nurture debate is far from settled, except for a few on the extremes.

The feral children theory seems to be mostly based on hoaxes, one of the verifies cases was of a girl who did learn language and lived to an old age. It seems that many of the children who went feral were abandon by their parents due to mental deficiency, so it is not surprising that some of them would not learn a language.

The debate is far from over.

by Obvious Leo » Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:22 am

Not so, doc. Children that have no language at all by the age of about 14 will never acquire it at all and this has nothing to do with mental deficiency. It's to do with brain plasticity and the way in which neural pathways are established in the developing brain.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:"I am so smart! I am so smart! S-M-R-T... I mean S-M-A-R-T!"

Is Homer Simpson an atheist, or merely as 'S-M-R-T' as one?

Atheists are one-hit wonders that have swapped illusions of sacredness, and protecting that sacredness with the subversion myth that religionists are at the heart of the world's woes, and that, if only they could be converted or relegated to the dustbin, humanity could march on to it's future glory. Sound like a familiar story?

Yes, you Theist keep on using this old nutshell of a straw man. You dig it out at the slightest excuse, again, and again. So yes the story is very familiar.
THe only difference is, on this occasion is that you have expressed the straw man in a pseudo-intellectual way that sounds clever but does not really mean anything. I mean, really, did you really want to say this;"that have swapped illusions of sacredness, and protecting that sacredness with the subversion myth".

Are you implying that sacredness is an illusion (some progress here from you maybe) that atheists have swapped for some thing: you did not say what, btw. What sacredness are they protecting? And what is a subversion myth you say they are using to protect it?

Atheists are not promising glory or anything like it. They are witness to the destructive force of religion which peddles lies though, so much is obvious. The trick is not to just put yet another belief system in its place, like nationalism, patriotism, ad nauseam. These too are religions of a kind that are also destructive. And show the folly in dogma and unfounded reason.

If you really want to understand what I'm talking about, read Sarah Perry's book, mentioned in one of my Book Club threads (review copy free for download; no excuses not to). And if you don't want to, okay by me too. But it talks in depth on the sacred, as well as subversion myths.

Seriously Hobbes, when was the last time you picked up a book on philosophy? Because, judging from your replies, you fail to grasp many concepts. I don't think you're a stupid person, but you do seem uninterested in exploring new ideas. Unlike you, I understand there is much yet to learn, and take joy in doing so though reading.

And please don't answer this. I'm tired of glib replies.

Dalek Prime wrote:Stay ignorant then. A guy who needs to start a thread saying how his brand of thought makes him on average smarter, is insecure.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Stay ignorant then. A guy who needs to start a thread saying how his brand of thought makes him on average smarter, is insecure.

Obviously this "Sarah Penny" is not worth your while to cite.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Stay ignorant then. A guy who needs to start a thread saying how his brand of thought makes him on average smarter, is insecure.

Obviously this "Sarah Penny" is not worth your while to cite.

Why bother. You've already dismissed her work without reading it (the definition of ignorance).

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Atheists are smarter , but it seems also more creative.

attofishpi wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Atheists are smarter , but it seems also more creative.

Atheists as philosophers are less intelligent, and are only more creative (than their fellow atheists) when they sit on a toilet to dispose of their human waste.
l.