Are believers less intelligent than Atheists? Discuss

Not sure about that.

On the whole though, I think the material situation remains the same, and it remains difficult, just the kind of trouble changes with time and place.

Possibly it is a combination of both.

And yet such inquiry tends to take the form of blindly believing what someone else says. Now, that is just more rat psychology.

See? You're good at rat psychology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am again reminded of the infamous Dunning-Kruger effect:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I taught my dog not to kill things on the spot. She used to stay still even though her energy could tangibly spill over any second, and then look up into my eyes. I need but flick a finger and she would kill. If I told her to stop mid-flow she would. Humans also learn about actions and consequences (punishments). Is it the ability to resist our instincts, the ability to learn to resist our instincts, or the ability to teach others to resist their instincts that sets us apart? None, because animals can resist their instincts (I wouldn't say all animals, but the division suggested is not drawn between us and certain animals (mammals) like rats but much further down into the animal kingdom), so animals can clearly learn to resist, and of course animals chastise their young to make them resist their instincts.

If animals couldn't resist certain instincts (even sexual) their societies (hierarchies) would break down or spill over into perpetual violence.

I don't know much of rat behaviour but I assume that when they collect into groups they do have a pecking order. Which would suggest subordinates are forced to learn how to resist their instincts and tow the line?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exactly. Humans live by their instinctive programming the vast majority of the time. Inherent behaviors and responses. Only once in a while does a human stop to think about how they act. We may have the capacity, but that doesn't mean we use it very often. Many animals (Selves included) have the capacity.

 

Perhaps it may have been better for me to include the words "a greater degree" in our capacity to over rule our instinctive natures.?

 

It's probably a safe assumption but I'm still holding my bets. Observe humanity for a while and you could easily conclude we're one of the dumber species.

 

Being a species that destroys our environment and calls it progress... yeah we are dumb. I've always thought we were the dumbest animals on the planet. Dolphins, now there's your smarts. I won't be too surprised if they pop up saying "So long and thank you for the fish!" some day.

 

What is this "instinctive nature" anyway?

It sounds like a culturally-specific concept that was invented and promoted with the intention to make people feel superior to animals (and thus feel justified to treat them poorly).

 

Considering very few people actually raise and kill animals for food themselves, or even have a great amount of direct interaction with animals except for pets, I don't think the majority of people mistreat animals. I can't say if the majority feels superior but considering how devastated people are when they lose a pet, I hardly think that the majority of pet owners feel superior to animals. Maybe though, as you say it is cultural. In America, animals get treated pretty well compared to animals in Pakistan. Here, farm animals are fed well and given proper medical care. In Pakistan, even animals that the people depend on for their livelihood are fed last and it isn't rare to see a skeletal donkey pulling a wagon so heavily loaded down that the donkey is lifted off the ground by the wagon.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most of the people I hear use the phrase, "dumb animals" when comparing them to humans are people who follow Abrahamic faiths. But I won't go so far as to say, that all believers of Abrahamic faiths view animals that way. It is also common that those who look down on animals also display traits of racism and sexism as well. Some people just pick from their religion or other philosophical teachings anything that legitimizes a superiority complex. But plenty of theists disregard those parts of their faith. And I have run across a few, though not many, chauvinistic, racist animal hating atheists as well. Some people are just assholes no matter what they believe in.

It could still be instinctive behavior though. The norm to not be an asshole, and the exception, perhaps caused by a mental defect, to be an asshole, and intellect or belief system have little to do with it. This is just me speculating as I love to do. Do not assume I am declaring anything said here as fact. I can't know any better than anyone else the intricacies of the human mind.

 

Culturally specific concepts might include a lot of things, but wording is chosen by the speaker.
Dictionary references don't always help.

Programmed behavior, that I refer to, can include "instinct." These behaviors are not necessarily done thoughtlessly, although they often are.
Consider: You startle a person. They widen their eyes, back up, assume a defensive position and may even emit a noise.
This is an example of complete instinct or thoughtless behavior. Lacking in divine creation, we must rely on our evolutionary traits.
Consider a person walking along: Their gait is often thoughtless. They don't think about walking or how they carry themselves much. They don't measure their stride. It's like habit. Their choosing of words when speaking is quite often habitual more than conscientious. While they might put a lot of thought into writing, speaking tends to be rough blurbs. Words are chosen more out of recognition and habit than in careful consideration. It's why we trip over our tongues, sometimes. Many people are the same way with opinions, thoughts, decisions, actions... I'd go so far to say that a great many people float through their lives, never really being self aware or really analyzing themselves, others and their lives, but simply mimicking behaviors and and thoughts because it "seems the thing to do."
These behaviors are not always inherited behaviors, although I believe a great many are.
"Inherent" can include the fundamental structure of the brain of the individual. Our brains are a stacked mess of the primitive overlain by the more complex. We'll follow primitive thought processes just as readily as we may conscientiously considered ones- and let's face it... Primitive ones are easier.
Observe people around you. How they move around, every movement, not just walking. They way they move their arms. Hold their heads. The habitual nods or steadfast sturdiness. The facial expressions. The graceful movements or sharp jerky ones. They don't think about any of these motions- they just do them. Some folks are good with their hands while others are clumsy.
While an artisan may be able to concentrate on developing and improving hand-skills, a great many people ignore the capability and accept their limitations. And even that artisan is still limited as to how far he can develop his skills.
Not only will you notice differences, individual to individual, but similarities. Far, far more similarities, actually. From people far removed... It's amazing how limited the options actually are on inherent behaviors. Some people have blue eyes, some brown, some green... Some people reflexively cock their heads, some don't, some twitch, others nod all the time. Same behaviors, over and over found in all manner of individuals, as if our basic behaviors were put in a lottery box and a few drawn out at each birth for that individual.
We are capable of great things, true. But then, so are most mammals. With training, most mammals can learn a lot of the things we can. The behaviors, the development of skill, the ability to overcome fear or instinct... Such are circuses made of.
Yet, in spite of our m ore complex brains, our 'higher' abilities, we continue to organize ourselves in mammal social groups just like other mammals. We move like apes, we thrust our fists in the air, we grin and laugh, we socially dominate others and we revolve around our monkeyspheres.

I always chuckle to myself a bit (chuckling. Hmmm -An apeish trait I think little about) when I see and hear others talk about lowly animals, those dumb things beneath us, then watch them run off whooping and hollering, chest bumping over a competitive match of physical and social dominance (a.k.a. football).
They talk so much shit about them and we're just like them.

 

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/04/chimps-apes-laugh.html

What do they laugh at; blatantly a sense of humour is quite advanced. Maybe the difference is that chimps can't resist the instinct to laugh . . . but humans can . . . ha.

 

How about: Theists can't resist their instincts; Atheists can.

Or: Atheists can't resist their instincts; Theists can.

I suppose it depends on whether belief in god is a genetic trait, or not, or indeed whether it is an environment triggered phenotypic psychological expression.

 

Where do you live??!

 

Can't access the link, error message that the page is not available.


I've heard that "laughter" in chimps is actually an expression of anger, not of having fun.

 

The Rancher State. Note the part where she said, "Compared to Pakistan."
Though I shouldn't speak for S.G., thing is over here, in general, they are treated quite a bit better than many places over seas.

Personally, I have an issue with the Antibiotic problem with cattle...

But try visiting most zoo's in the United States and then visit many in other countries.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of zoo's, either, but S.G. can fill you in on what she's seen that will curl your hair.


Feel free, while looking things up to look up 'bile bears.'

 

believe me, i am absolutely willing to have God say, "this is why you are wrong", although i have no reason to think i would be in any state to talk philosophy if God were to be present. i am willing to say that there was a "good" reason behind all the things that appear "bad" to us now, although using the word "necessary" in place of "good" is not part of my current belief system. I am saying, if God is nothing but the biggest gorilla in the jungle and rules out of power and not love, i would of course out of fear do whatever was necessary at the time i was given that information, but by then i doubt . i am even willing to say God could ask me personally to give up my ideas of goodness and present to me as pure power only, in order to force me to let go of my boundaries of thought, if that is what is necessary - again, it isn't up to me to set how things ARE, BUT it IS up to me to choose within my mental limits, and not pretend i am someone else, otherwise i will be so full of doubt i might as well just give up thinking at all.

you haven't irritated me enough to make me do that yet

not my style

luther said "You must part with reason and not know anything of it and even kill it; else one will not get into the kingdom of heaven." He was from another time and place and we need to move on from that, although there is something in it that may lead to a reasonable idea, even though his is not a reasonable idea for modern humans. HOWEVER the fact that he recognized some level of freedom was a sign of changes in the wind, there is no step three without a step two. Maybe he was just saying, we need to part with the reasonable idea that humans can't manage doing things well enough to justify their salvation or some such thing, which would fit in with him trying to get past an obsession with sin.

This concept of maya deserves some discussion. It is similar to saying a play is "false", it may be more true than some part of a person's life, but then again the person has value as more than just a diamond in a net of zillions of entities, because we make it so. In that way the human play is more real than the essences or whatever is behind the cosmic play. I think we have to realize our limitations or we run the risk of pretending this place doesn't matter, because some other place is the "real" thing.

bah, if anyone allows that we have the right to our own minds it is me - i consider it a basic, inalienable human right.

I just said maybe reincarnation is the pov of an enlightened being talking about their present and future instead of their present and future lives, and i wasn't convinced by that link you gave that actual biological reincarnation is necessarily a reality, and asked for an explanation of that idea that biological reincarnation is a must, as referenced by the holy texts, or whatever. But like i said, it is just an idea I had that struck me as interesting.

as Hegel said, "Oh God! Why did you curse me to be a philosopher?". Dostoevsky in "notes from the underground" talking about a man with "over-acute consciousness" and the travail of it. I am sure it isn't all peaceful for people like Descartes either.

Why problematic?

if you live without something can you call it a need? Of course there is always (or isn't) the afterlife to include in your calculation, although you aren't presented with conclusive information about that.

that isn't what life is about, neither just happiness, nor (especially not) guarantees. Then again there are many people who would say that life is about happiness, and will also give up anything for what they perceive as safe.

i see the difficulty more in finding a goal that is seen as attainable, and worthy. If i asked you what would be a worthy goal, couldn't you tell me easily? It seems the problem lies in finding one that lies within your power (in your perception).

i think it is better to ask, what will lead to the most fulfilling happiness and sadness, with a reasonable amount of pain and suffering, and not "how to experience happiness only", although i am sure you are too sophisticated to mean that when you say true happiness.

 

Again, I think that in some schools of Hinduism, they have a rather fancy solution to this kind of problem too:

For one, there is karma and reincarnation, practically doing away with the problem of evil as we are used to it in the West.

Then they have the concept that time is cyclical, and that there is no eternal damnation. That does away with a good portion of our other concerns.

For three, they have several conceptions of God and how an individual human can relate to God. This can briefly be explained on the examples of two kinds of devotion of two women. One is Queen Kunti who thinks of God as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the One from which everything else emanates; what she feels for God are awe and reverence. The other is Mother Yasoda, a foster mother of an incarnation of God. Mother Yasoda doesn't know her foster son is the Supreme Personality of Godhead; she thinks she is merely dealing with a dear child that has been entrusted into her care and she loves him unconditionally.
The idea is that a person cannot simultaneously know God to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but also love God in an intimate way.

In mainstream Christianity, one tries to have all those feelings for one conception of God. I think this is where Christianity is lacking.
The God who rules the Universe - that is the God for whom one has awe and reverence. I think awe and reverence are mutually exclusive with feelings of intimate love.

But what do humans need salvation from?
God's wrath?
Or their own sins, in the sense that sinning is making their lives hard, in the here and now?
?

I've never been able to relate to this idea of salvation or that there is a need for it. I've never liked the image of God as implied by the idea of salvation. To me, the mainstream idea of salvation just strengthens the conviction that God is a terrible being whose wrath we must try to avoid, or suffer the consequences forever. And I don't want to think about God that way.

Actually, I think what primarily deserves discussion are ideas about evangelizing and conversion.

Interestingly, in traditional Buddhism, a Buddhist practitioner is not supposed to teach, unless so invited by the person seeking instruction. There is no notion of evangelizing as such in traditional Buddhism - evangelizing where someone would make a point of talking about spiritual/religious topics to people who are not members of the same religion he is, especially without those people inviting him to do so.

I've also heard that in traditional Hinduism, evangelizing and conversion were anathema, and that it was only after the arrival of Christian missionaries that some Hindu teachers unilaterally began to preach to people outside of their own congregations.

I think that the circumstances in which we hear of an idea have a lot to do with how we will think about it, how we will experience it.

The way people from different cultures think of maya is a good example: In traditional Eastern cultures, they don't associate the idea of maya with notions that this life is not real or that it is worthless; Westerners, however, tend to see it that way.
I think this is because we tend to be exposed to the idea of maya in a very limited way, not understanding its complexity and how it ties in with other ideas, and also because the people from which we hear about it or the circumstances in which we hear about it aren't all that palatable.

The Buddhists probably have a different notion of what is "real" and how to think about "reality" than you do ... Without considering that, and a number of other things, there is likely going to be misunderstanding, due to not enough context and due to unaddressed differences in some basic categories.

Maybe Descartes himself wasn't all that peaceful either. But he was willing to submit to the doctrine of the Catholic Church and declared himself an ardent believer.
I am quite sure it is impossible to arrive at that firm position merely by philosophical speculation.

When it is not clear what the "self" is, or when the notion of "self" is itself what is being under scrutiny, "trusting oneself" becomes a tricky concept.

Well, if you look at the world, it can be quite confusing: Often, the people who are manipulative, unethical are the ones that get ahead in life, without suffering any adverse consequences. And one wonders whether perhaps one ought to overhaul one's notions of "ethical."
Also, people who are strict materialists, believing that this one life is all there is and that all is over after this one is over - they seem to have things relatively easy, have a lot of confidence.

Is it worthy to look for a happiness that would not change, not deteriorate, that would last? Some would say that it is not worthy, that there is no such happiness to begin with.
Although, arguably, it is only this lasting kind of happiness that we look for whenever we look for happiness - even when we try to find it in impermanent things and even when we rationalize it away as impossible.

 

Check out the link now.

 

and exhibit in a lot of cases quite extreme sociopathic tendancies because of the notion of "no karma, and "no judgement day".
Sort of like "who cares if we destroy the Brasilian rainforests, not me I am going to be dead any way when the children start to struggle for air..."

no need to leave anything behind... scorched earth policy for so many these days...

 

Materialists still acknowledge cause and effect, but there is no end to the evil people do when they think some transcendent being or force is on their side.