are christians ‘normal people of normal intelligence’?
You mean to tell me that you consider fundamentalist Christians who distribute those unintentionally amusing religious tracts to be normal people of normal intelligence? I don’t believe it. (Jim)
It’s easy to paint groups of people we disagree with as idiots for whom access to logic and reasoning is limited. I should know: I do it all the time.
But the truth is that every outlook on life is littered with people across every skill and intelligence spectrum. We can’t account for why people live their lives based on facts that seem obvious nonsense to us.
Let me give you a couple of examples.
- I’m stunned that lots of Christians out there think our planet is 6000 years old, and that fossils and dinosaur bones fit neatly into that understanding. What does this blatant disregard for basic science say about human intelligence?
There is nothing in the Bible that indicates in any way that the world is much older than 6,000 years old. The Bible does tell us, however, that the fossils we find could not have been buried before God created Adam. The animals whose bones became fossilized had to have died after God created Adam. That means those fossils must be less than 6,000 years old. (missiontoamerica.org)
- I’m horrified that most human beings think it makes sense to eat the flesh of of other sentient animals, showing little or no concern for how the animals live and die. And the numbers of regular meats eaters and the quantity we eat are only rising. What does this blatant disregard for suffering, environmental damage and negative health effects say about human intelligence?
The global demand for meat is growing, particularly in China and India, which could see an 80% boom in the meat sector by 2022 due to a new (and growing) middle class. Africans are also starting to eat more meat (businessinsider.com)
Unfortunately for us, humans don’t really rely on facts when formulating opinions on where life comes from or where it’s going. We seem to know a lot, but in reality we’re just scratching the surface of what existence is.
There are two important ways we further limit our teeny piece of understanding:
- We simply disregard facts that aren’t convenient for us. We may write them off as unimportant, not worthy of further consideration, or randomly not relevant to us as individuals. We may frame them with reference to invisible supernatural forces, the existence of which can neither be proven nor disproven.
- We indulge in the company of others who feed our confirmation bias – assuring us that it’s perfectly reasonable to believe the world is 6000 years old or that eating animals is tradition that need never change.
The evidence is often staring us in the face. But I know people of all levels of intelligence who believe in gods, who accept the world is 6000 years old, and who chomp into anonymous pieces of animal flesh with delight.
I like to think of myself as a normal person of normal intelligence. But, at the end of the day, I can rest assured that in my own life I most probably behave in the most absurdly ignorantly way possible in terms of my beliefs and behaviour (although I expect you’d struggle to pinpoint anything …), so I’ll try not to point the finger at any of you.
this was very nice. i had to go back to the original article for the comments that ‘originated’ this one. it seems to be a common and well worn tactic to ‘throw poo’ at your opponent’s intelligence rather than carefully and ‘intelligently’ consider what they are saying with objectivity.
i know i’m guilty of this myself from time to time, but thank you for calling this out. -kia
LikeLike
Indeed, but more than that – admitting we all have our own individual blind spots and as humans have a really limited understanding of anything, in the grand scheme of things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. Also, loved your Jefferson post. May I reblog it tomorrow?
LikeLike
Sorry, that was Nan. Embarrassed now
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol. Wake up, Mike!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yessireee
LikeLike
Well, I ”chomped” meat with ne’er a care in the world for most of my life to date.
No longer. So from this perspective I can testify how I accepted cultural indoctrination and it was never an issue.
Therefore, I can be somewhat tolerant of those who are unaware. I am not tolerant of those who turn and ridicule vegetarianism when there is simply a vast amount of info available on the horrendous suffering animals are forced to endure simply to satisfy one’s taste buds.
This type of attitude is willful ignorance and perhaps indicative of a lack of intelligence.
Why anyone could ever eat bacon after watching how these animals are reared and slaughtered is almost beyond belief.
But this is changing, especially in western society and now that some people have also seen the huge potential to make money, its growth will accelerate exponentially.
I foresee that it will become extremely ”fashionable” to be vegetarian and meat eating/eaters will be regarded in a similar light as smokers.
As for religion and intelligence. I’ll leave that for someone else.
LikeLike
You’re no more intelligent now for having given up chomping on animals. And I’m sure you don’t consider your close family members who have religious beliefs to be of sub-normal intelligence. Tildeb or someone like him may come on ranting about verifiable facts, but it’s about how we balance them, based on our own experiences of life.
LikeLike
So, unpleasant facts don’t matter?! (Am I defending tildeb?!)
LikeLike
No, it’s about acknowledging our own blind spots. Many people who claim that Christians are all dumb probably eat meat. Look at the evidence – health, welfare and environmental. Why do so many people continue killing in the face of the facts? Because the facts inconvenience their lifestyle, their habits, and they write them off as irrelevant. For Christians, facts about science inconvenience their outlook, and they write them off as irrelevant. Actually with more cause – their god can do anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I used the term cultural indoctrination as the prime factor which tended to kill off/numb awareness of animal suffering.
Once one has accepted the truth pertaining to an issue such as eating animals then it could be construed as a lack of intelligence to continue to do something one knows is morally reprehensible and nutritionally completely unnecessary.
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
So it is a difficult call as to whether my family lack intelligence in this regard or are simply still suffering cultural indoctrination?
But making snide remarks about eating animals suggests a lack of compassion which also might be construed as a lack of intelligence.
I dunno, you tell me?
LikeLike
No, no and no. Tildeb is RIGHT about the verifiable facts angle. That’s the one aspect of life which doesn’t depend on opinion. I know at what temperature(s) water boils, period. No interpretation, no readings- just numbers.
Animals consuming other animals are a part of the structure of this planet. Imperfect, cruel but very much how it works.
LikeLike
But you don’t know boiling point: it varies according to air pressure, being significantly lower at mountain tops, and according to impurities, so you put salt in boiling water for a higher temperature cooking. Facts are slippery beggars.
LikeLike
That’s not slippery. Water boils at 100°C at sea level and that goes down as you gain altitude. That’s fantastically straightforward.
LikeLike
Oh come on, it’s quite simple. Facts are facts, but we all frame them differently depending on our culture, our society, our biases, our experiences. Please check my links in the main post about the many negative health affects of meat, the horrendous suffering and the environmental damage. All FACTS. But you prefer to concentrate on the ‘fact’ that, what?, we there’s an imperfect animal structure. And you think this can’t be altered by logic, reasoning or empathy? Listen to yourself.
Vegetarians are more intelligent because we’re critically analysing the situation and coming to a conclusion, not following a braid-dead cultural norm or the pleasure principle with no regard to FACTS.
LikeLike
Eating animals isn’t a “cultural norm”, it’s part of a natural cycle of predation. Where I think we’ve gone wrong is in the industrialization of the process, that’s thrown things off. Suffering too is a natural part of existence, as is death. I suppose what I’m saying is where you’re setting the bar of what’s *ideal* is entirely disconnected from the realities of animal life.
LikeLike
This is such an odd exchange. I provide facts proving it’s unhealthy, unpleasant/unethical and environmentally damaging to eat meat. You’ve brushed these inconvenient facts to the side, and believe they are trumped by your assertion that “suffering is natural”. The reality of the human animal life is that we can look at evidence and make decisions. Although, as the post demonstrates, we’re not so great at doing that …
LikeLike
I’m not brushing your evidence aside at all!!! I accept it within reason. Almost everything we do contributes to our demise. Working in the sun = skin cancer. Sleeping too much or too little ach have their own consequences. My point is you seem to be coming from a planet where immortality and no suffering exists. That’s very much not our planet. At this precise moment, under every bush, a massacre is happening. Animals are sucking the life out of other animals. What makes you think humanity is good or productive? Or that we deserve to *rule* the earth? Why shouldn’t we just fade into the sunset?
LikeLike
What are you rambling about here Pink? You’ve lost the argument, so in your desperation are attempting to pull it somewhere ridiculous. What relevance does ruling the earth have to making sensible decisions about what we eat? It’s not logical to eat meat. Accept that. If you have some reason other than “it’s natural” and “humans are bad” please feel free to continue the conversation.
LikeLike
The problem is I think your premise is a non-starter. Is the implication we should live longer? That our species should last longer?
I’m not saying humans are bad, I’m saying the animal world isn’t a world of moral imperatives. As for consuming things that are bad for us, well that’s a very long list, including things like sugar.
LikeLike
“Is the implication we should live longer? That our species should last longer?”
People generally find themselves in a state of ‘alive’ and do what they can to alleviate any suffering to themselves. Eating in a way that is beneficial to your body minimises your person suffering, by avoiding inconveniences like cancer, heart disease and diabetes, that are all linked to meat intake. I don’t think you have any children, do you Pink? Not that I think one needs to breed to have any sense of investment in the future of humans in this planet, but it certainly helps in some cases.
“I’m not saying humans are bad”
No, but if you want any of this to form part of your argument, you’ll have to tell me why you passionately argue with people like Askthebigot and Roughseas in their attempts to marginalise and discriminate against minority groups of people.
“As for consuming things that are bad for us, well that’s a very long list, including things like sugar.”
And the sugar is suffering how? And its production is seriously damaging the planet how? Sugar in moderation isn’t bad for us. Meat in moderation is still bad for our health, bad for the planet and bad for the finished product.
(Sorry for the delay, I’ve been partying too much!)
LikeLike
Well, I’m sorry but your link of meat consumption to disease isn’t as solid as it may seem. Especially if it’s consumption in moderation. The WHO study which came out a while back on meat was much more complex than the media made it seem. That was highlighted by the *processed meat* angle the media picked up on. As a very well respected professor explained at the time, the second they say “processed” meat, a whole range of other factors have to be weighed into the findings. First define processed. Then who consumes most processed meats? At what income level? How likely are people in that group to visit a doctor? Does that vary from region to region? And then of course there’s the obvious: Don’t people on the Mediterranean diet live the longest in all of Europe? That includes moderate consumption of red meat, and a decent amount of seafood.
The effects of eating a free range chicken from an organic farm will obviously be different from eating one pumped full of steroids and other chemicals.
LikeLike
And do the majority of people in the world eat free range? That’s not in any imagination sustainable. The fact is that most people who eat meat do not avoid processed meats. One dead animal is as tasty as the next …
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re right, it’s not sustainable, so changes are required. But for a good argument to be made you need to be strict with the facts- and so the distinctions are necessary.
LikeLike
Well, let’s not kill the messenger here (“throwing poo”; “point the finger”), especially if that messenger is ME!
“Bible-bangers aren’t the brightest, study shows” (New Zealand Herald website, Sept. 11, 2011)
“The more religious you are, the less likely you are to be intelligent, a new scientific study has found. According to [University of Edinburgh] researchers, Christians–particularly fundamentalists who believe the Bible is God’s word–have a lower IQ than those who are less religious.”
This study can’t come as a surprise to most people who read this blog. So, what’s the real issue? It’s not that there isn’t good reason for believing that fundamentalists are less intelligent; it was simply “rude” of me to state that evident fact.
LikeLike
Far be it from me to defend religion, but in the context of the this post I should at least have a stab at it:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/august-web-only/brains-and-belief-arent-mutually-exclusive.html?start=1
Do you eat meat? You failed to comment on my comparison. And I failed to pull my comparison to its obvious conclusion: meat eaters are of inferior intelligence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6180753.stm
The real issue is that everyone has their own outlook on life, and we’re all blind to certain obvious facts that inconvenience us. I think my eating meat comparison is a stroke of genius. I hope you can see that. 😀
LikeLike
@Violet
Bearing in mind you are unlikely to get much feedback on both topics from meat-eaters I don’t think this is very intelligent at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh come on, it’s hilarious. It’s a striking parallel. And here’s Jim, calling Christians stupid and blindly declaring himself a natural omnivore – nothing more to it. The blind spot on full display.
LikeLike
Alright, you ignorant spoiled brat, this is the last time you’ll have the opportunity to criticize me for stating facts. Have fun with your responses, but unfortunately I’ll not see them.
LikeLike
Am I to conclude that you’ve banned yourself because you don’t like the discussion? What an odd turn of events …
LikeLike
Do I eat meat? Why of course I do! We’re omnivores, Violet–another fact you’d like to ignore.
LikeLike
Thanks for proving the point of the post Jim. Read it again if you’re unclear. 😉
LikeLike
Thank you for proving MY point, Violet. If reality displeases you, then you simply deny it! Attractive people do in fact tend to be preferred, Christian fundamentalists are, on average, less intelligent, and we are omnivores that evolved to eat meat. Yes, Violet, unpleasant realities (to you), yet realities nonetheless! Now stop trying to kill the messenger.
LikeLike
The attractive discussion is a good parallel to bring in because it’s another human behaviour that we can change with reference to facts. But, once again, only if we choose to see those facts …
LikeLike
Oh, I agree it is funny. But this is about intelligence is it not? And you did point that out to Jim about staying on topic, so it wasn’t very intelligent of you because I suspect you loaded the post to get this type of one-sided response.
Naughty ( unintelligent ) Violet.
However, having just read Jim’s response, which he didn’t even include a tongue in cheek or a smiley I immediately award him Dickhead of the Week.
LikeLike
And I award you Coward Behind a Keyboard of the Week.
LikeLike
Coward? Really? For what reason?
LikeLike
A deliberately obtuse coward, Arkenaten.
LikeLike
Obtuse? Again in what manner? Please clarify.
LikeLike
“I suspect you loaded the post to get this type of one-sided response.”
I don’t know what you mean. The post is a reminder to me as much as anyone else that we probably don’t process facts as efficiently as we think we do.Obviously ‘intellectually superior’ atheists who eat meat are an easy target …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank goodness I am not intellectually superior to anyone … I even confuse myself sometimes.
We went shopping ( there’s a thing, right?) and I noticed printed on the packet of some frozen sausages the epithet, ”Smells like home”.
I couldn’t help wonder what particular ”Home Smells” these would include?
Ems said imagine if they smelled like furniture? 🙂
LikeLike
I love the smell of sausages! Bacon! Mmmmm
LikeLike
Really? These days I tend to leave the vicinity when meat is cooked.
After watching one or two pig farming/slaughtering videos my imagination tends to run riot.
Odd how the mind works?
LikeLike
Oh yikes, I couldn’t bear to watch anything like that. I swing between utter disgust and lust for meat.
LikeLike
After I had already ceased eating meat, I saw a video my sister suggested.
It made me physically ill.Literally, and I couldn’t finish the entire video.
The way the pigs were stunned then had their throats slashed open while still alive and simply bled to death while the workers chatted away as if it was nothing.
It was utterly horrific.
LikeLike
People should be forced to watch that before they eat a bacon sandwich. I seriously believe that.
LikeLike
I agree! I became so emotional afterwards I had tears of rage and I struggled to sleep for a couple of nights.
And the video was real, no fake nonsense.
It was a smallish pig farm somewhere in the USA. You could hear the poor animals squealing in terror as the worker chased it around a pen prodding it with the stun gun thing then when it was disabled/crippled it was hauled onto a conveyor, still twitching where another worker simply gashed out its throat.
LikeLike
Send Pink a link to that video and see if he still wants a bacon sandwich. I wonder how many meat eaters have watched things like that. Obviously the people that do the work become completely numbed .. or worse.
“It will come as no surprise that the consequences of such emotional dissonance include domestic violence, social withdrawal, drug and alcohol abuse, and severe anxiety. As slaughterhouse workers are increasingly being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, researchers are finally starting to systematically explore the results of killing sentient animals for a living.”
https://www.texasobserver.org/ptsd-in-the-slaughterhouse/
LikeLike
I think your link should suffice. If he asks, I’ll scratch around my history folder and see if I can find the link.
Besides, we see such intransigence all the time with religious people.
Also it really does my head in even thinking about it.
LikeLike
I was unwise to reveal in my first office job that I was a member of Mensa. Thereafter, whenever I did anything particularly stupid, my boss said, “MensaMan strikes again!”
I have picked up all sorts of views and practices, and then not bothered to think about them after. Becoming vegetarian and having a balanced diet seems too much like hard work atm, even though I hear of suffering in meat production. It should be a symbiosis, but is not.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’ve been there (not the Mensa bit, the ‘too much like hard work atm’ bit). I’m still there when it comes to dairy products. But it doesn’t change the reality that overwhelmingly the facts should lead us to change our outlook on life. We ignore them, or re-configure them. The ‘it’s natural’ over-ruling three pressing reasons to make a simple change.
I don’t for one minute think we just do this with regards to religious beliefs or animal eating. I’m sure our outlooks are all saturated in nonsense – no matter how intelligent we like to think we are.
LikeLike
Have you heard of Daniel Kahneman and fast and slow thinking: slow thinking we patiently work things out, fast thinking we just go with instinct and past decisions. Cognitive biases apply to fast thinking, but if we worked everything out we would never get anything done. We only have so much time and energy for slow thinking, and unless we can be clear that there is a priority to apply it to, say, meat eating or religious belief, we just won’t.
LikeLike
Hey violet-
Based on your comments to others here, it seems you have answered your own question, but I must say the question itself is rather insulting, or at least it should be.
Would I be more intelligent than you if I crushed you in a game of chess, or even defeated a grandmaster? Would I be more intelligent than Betty Crocker if I baked a cake that was unsurpassed in taste? Would I be more intelligent than you if I memorized the New Testament or taught myself how to read Hebrew, Greek, or Latin? Would I be more intelligent than you or you friends if I was a master carpenter and you could not hammer a nail?
Would I be more intelligent if I built a house from scratch, while you or your friends hired someone to build your home?
So, WHAT are you using to measure intelligence, and please do not mention iq. I know many smart people who do not know what a left handed hammer looks like.
And while I’m here, I’ll humbly submit that anybody who says there is no God……..is not too smart. Intelligence is obviously overrated.
LikeLike
I agree ColorStorm that the question is rather insulting. It was lifted directly from the quote that started the ponder. I also have to say that I agree with you about the complications in measuring this thing we call intelligence. I know lots of reasonably intelligent and even normal Christians. I can’t account for how they process scientific facts.
But then I can’t account for how normal, intelligent humans process what they’re doing when they chomp on dead animals who have clearly suffered, whose meat is generally harmful for the human, and the production of which is harming our planet.
We all process the same information rather uniquely and, as many have said before me, it’s unhelpful to brandish generalising insults.
LikeLike
People who think that race, religion, sexual or religious preference, have anything to do with intelligence need to get out more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I expect you’re right SOM. What’s happened to you?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I got out more.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Intriguing. Do you have a post with more details?
LikeLike
The problem about this is – in part – semantic. What do we mean when we say something is “normal”? Do we mean it equals with some qualifiers of a social norm, or just that it is frequent enough not to be called rare? What do we mean when we talk about “intelligence”? Do we mean, that intelligent refers to some person who is succesfull in all, or at least in most of their actions and conclusions? Do we think there even is a method of measuring some over all intelligence, or is it more likely, that people in general are “normally” rather “intelligent” in some aspects of their lives and at the same time fumble with a number of other things? On wich arena each individual struggles with or finds clever solutions and correct conclusions varies greatly.
I would think it is fair to say, that a fundamentalist religious person is not being “intelligent” on the field of scientific information, if their view is due to willfull ignorance and disregarding evidence. Wether that is “normal” or not is much more complex question, because most people in the world are rather ignorant about the scientific method, even though it obviously (to anyone who understands it) is the best method of reaching reliable conclusions.
LikeLike
“I would think it is fair to say, that a fundamentalist religious person is not being “intelligent” on the field of scientific information, if their view is due to willfull ignorance and disregarding evidence.”
Is that what they’re doing? Or are they simply framing the information differently? Sure the facts don’t really make sense to them, but their beliefs exist in a framework that their god doesn’t need to make sense to mere humans. Once they’ve accepted this framework (be that through indoctrination or trauma conversation) anything is possible and their god/the Bible is always right. I don’t think acceptance of the framework is a reflection of intelligence or normalcy either – brains have unpredictable needs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point. Yet, a very large portion of the best educated Christians in the western world do not think the world is 6000 years old. Even the ultimate fortification of conservatism, the Papacy has agreed to the scientific estimation on the age of the earth and the universe. In the case of most fundamentalists who disagree with that notion it is simply due to blatant ignorance, but there is a group of highly eduacated fundamentalists, who still choose, or actively decide to believe in the fantasy about young earth. Usually we only believe things that we are convinced. But people have different qualifications as to what they think is reliable information. There is some sort of autosuggestion going on there, when a Theist decides to disregard the scientific research and place higher authority on an ancient book and/or what their parents told them, me thinks. Who among them has actually had the chance to talk about this subject personally with their god, even if many of them claim a personal relationship with their particular god? That can hardly be called anything but willfull ignorance on a subject they could easily aquire better information, if they wanted it. But perhaps they do not want it, because it would cause a painfull amount of cognitive dissonance.
Refusing to engage your brain (be it god given or not) is a form of idiocy. The Theists are refusing to think about this on a rational level. Or as one religious person told me, not so long ago, he thought I “overthink” an issue. I can not fathom what that is even supposed to mean. And that is my limitation – not to be able to understand how one could think too much, no matter how much I think about it…
Even the most fundamentalist Christians do not actually believe the Bible is always right. They are engaged in a game of picking and choosing where they agree with the Bible and where they do not agree with it. Like for example, they do not think stoning is an appropriate way to treat homosexual males, or tatooed people. They do not think, that burning a pidgeon is the best cure for leper. They do not think that slavery is acceptable and so forth. They rapidly come up with all sorts of “rationalizations” for why the things in the Bible they do not agree with are either supposed to be obsolete. As if it made any sense at all that their god made rules for mankind, that would once become obsolete and that the way to evaluate wich ones are still valid rules were theirs to choose by their personal preferences. Like eating pig was obviously no longer wrong for some unfathomable reason, but murder just has to be.
As for what is “normal” seems to me highly overrated just by virtue of being frequent. For example, it is “normal” to believe in gods, spirits and whatnot other unnatural entities, but that does not make them any more real in the actual world we inhabit.
LikeLike
I have to ask you Raut, do you eat animals?
LikeLike
Great post. Usually studies that deal with religiosity and intelligence have consistent, but small to moderate correlations. In other words, there is enough variability there that one should draw conclusions cautiously and it’s dangerous to use aggregate studies like this to make assumptions about individuals. In practical terms, you will find plenty of smart religious people and dumb religious people as well as plenty of smart atheists and dumb atheists. If you bring them all into a large group, however, there will be a slightly higher ratio of dumb to smart people among the extremely religious.
The Us-Versus-Them mentality is a dangerous behavior whether it’s theists or atheists or liberals or conservatives, or different countries that in engage in it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even though I agree with everything you say, I would just like to point out, that indeed correlation does not necessarily point out any causation one way or a nother.
I have great doubts about the validity of any tests to measure intelligence. They seem so strongly culturally related, that in my opinion, they do not measure so much wether a person is intelligent, rather how cultured the person is. Then again, that depends on what we mean by intelligence. For example, is it a form of intelligence to recognize three-dimensional objects from a two-dimensional representation, or is it merely something some people – in a culture where we from early on learn to use two-dimensional representation – have a slightly better ability to handle than others? What about people from cultures where two-dimensional representation is not an everyday experience?
However, it is possible to recognize when an individual makes a badly informed choise, if not at the moment of the choise by the potential ramifications of the particular choise, then in any time in the future, by looking at the actual reprecussions of the choise. Is it not justified to point out a badly informed choise being made, especially if the poor information behind the choise appears as a result of an intellectual laziness, or some ideological stubbornness to refuse to get better information? What about when the choise is about not looking for verifiable information, because cultural indoctrination tells the person they already hold the best possible information from the highest imaginable authority, even though what their information is actually and quite obviously based on, is their personal preference being confirmed by an ancient book, that their parents (or some similar early influence) told them was the absolute arbitrator on any issue, yet they choose it only on this one occasion as it conviniently fits their own taste? Is that not somehow dumb?
I personally do not consider myself a particularly intelligent, or clever person. I have learned that even if it may annoy me a bit, I have greater chances of not botching my own, or anyone elses lives, if I listen when people give me rational and well informed advice before I do something stupid… In general people are both stupid and intelligent, but it varies on wich issues each and everyone of us is being stupid, or intelligent. As human beings I see a responsibility to at least try to help out when people are being stupid about something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you speaking about fundamentalists or any type of religious person? I imagine many non-fundamentalists don’t view the ancient book as being the absolute arbitrator on any issue. Whereas most fundamentalists, I suspect, do. Also, how do you reconcile that with your claim that intelligence can’t be measured easily between cultures? Couldn’t a fundamentalist just use that claim against you and say you’re understanding of intelligence is a product of your cultural upbringing and that’s why you don’t value the information in the holy book and their “form” of intelligence?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, like I said in a former comment a very large portion of the best educated Christians in the western world (infact most of my Christian compatriots, just as an example) do not think the world is 6000 years old. They have no desire to combat the overwhelming evidence as provided by science on the matter. So, I guess I was referring to a fundamentalist. But on the other hand a good majority of the Christians who do not think the world is 6000 years old, have no clue about what the Bible possibly says about such things or other things on wich the book clearly contradicts any scientific knowledge. They, as far as I know, see big parts of the book as mystical parabels and such, that they do not bother to even hazard guesses on what those mean. Do they not? They tend to leave such things to the professional “ritual experts”, including ever even reading the book, they take as a holy tome from a creator entity of the universe – because clearly, a creator god would not be too interrested in people even reading a book alledgedly authored by that god. Not even when they at the same time believe the book to be the only direct attempt, that god really has made to communicate with humanity. Could we call that stupid? For sure it is quite normal. Is it not?
Yes, a fundamentalist could, would and some of them even have used my own argument about intelligence being culturally measured phenomenon. They have made claims even about me being stupid for not understanding what they see as blatantly obvious, that a god exists. Wich of course means, the god they are worshipping, if it exists as such, punishes people for being idiots and not accepting the “truth” of the metaphysical guesswork in the book written in antiquity. I find this idea of a creator god curious, but nevertheless idiotic, since it seems I have to put it in words for them to even understand what they themselves are actually suggesting regardless of our relative cultural backrounds.
I do not take any pride in my atheism. I have not achieved it. I salute the people who have overcome their religious indoctrination, but in my case those people were my grandparents, whom I only ever knew as a child. Becoming an atheist did not take any intellectual or emotional effort from me, as I was raised in an atheist family and clan and in a relatively secular society. As such, it did not require any intelligence from me at all. But reality is not culturally relevant. Then the question arises, wether the fundamentalist would not accept the scientific research, observation and facts on any other field of life, that do not contradict their religious sentiments. If they accept science as the best method to find out how an airplane should be built, if they accept medical care based on scientific research and recognize it as higher and better way to knowledge, than to just blindly trust some supernatural entities, their culture on understanding the effectiveness of science as a methodology of how reality works is not so different from mine. Perhaps they have no clue as to why the scientific method produces reliable results and simply take scientific research on the same level of blind faith on authority as they take the ancient book? In politics such reliance on some authority would be called authoritarianism and we have rather sad examples of where that might lead…
My point is, as I said I agree with you, that most people are not total idiots, even though we often have idiotic views on separate issues. Most people are not very intelligent either, even though all of have some fields where we exell. Thus the attempt to segragate people into separate camps by dehumanizing entire groups of people by calling them idiots or unintelligent leads to nowhere but suffering. Yet, we may be idiots on some field of life together with a group of people and the reason why that happens might be a cultural bubble, where questioning what we hold true might even be forbidden. That does not mean the group living in this bubble are wrong about the issue, but how are they ever to find out, if they do not test their ideas? If they refuse to use the scientific method, they have just cast out the best way to test the reliability of any idea we humans have. Is that not idiotic? What about, if the cultural values of the group demand blind obidience and faith are virtues? Is not submitting to such nonsense idiotic, even if you are indoctrinated to accept that as such?
LikeLike
“The Us-Versus-Them mentality is a dangerous behavior whether it’s theists or atheists or liberals or conservatives, or different countries that in engage in it.”
You’re right, and it’s difficult not to fall into it sometimes.
LikeLike