Link Between Intelligence & Viewing the World in Greater Detail

The More Intelligent One is, the Greater Ability they Possess to View the World in Detail

Consider, if this is true, how do we reconcile it with PhD Scientists who subscribe to Young Earth Creationism? If it is false, how would the ability to view the world in greater detail not be connected with the concept of intelligence in a logically consistent matter? Is there more to the picture than has been raised here (as of yet)?

Thoughts?

xMathFanx said:

The More Intelligent One is, the Greater Ability they Possess to View the World in Detail

Consider, if this is true, how do we reconcile it with PhD Scientists who subscribe to Young Earth Creationism? If it is false, how would the ability to view the world in greater detail not be connected with the concept of intelligence in a logically consistent matter? Is there more to the picture than has been raised here (as of yet)?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

A PhD as such (alone by itself) does not denote intelligence on everything.

For instance a PhD in economics (for instance) does not automatically make the holder a recognized authority on medicine.

Anyone having acquired a PhD in any scientific field is leaving science the moment he or she attempts to validify their "belief" in creationism with it. Not because creationism is impossible but because nobody knows either way. It remains unproven and anyone claiming to have proof is deluded (at best).

Should scientific proof ever surface (be supplied) that would of course change the picture completely. It would actually supply "the more to the picture" but is currently non-existent.

xMathFanx said:

The More Intelligent One is, the Greater Ability they Possess to View the World in Detail

Consider, if this is true, how do we reconcile it with PhD Scientists who subscribe to Young Earth Creationism? If it is false, how would the ability to view the world in greater detail not be connected with the concept of intelligence in a logically consistent matter? Is there more to the picture than has been raised here (as of yet)?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I was at a conference (it was a stem cell conference, which makes it even more interesting) and my colleague invited someone to come have a drink with us. She was talking about her crazy religious fundamentalist neighbor that thought if she didn't have sex a certain amount of time with her husband he would hurt, adn that the bible said that. Anyway, we were laughing about that and she asked this guy if he was religious.

He was a PhD student, at a stem cell conference (he didn't work on embryonic stem cells) and he was a young earth creationist. It was hard to talk to him about this without showing our mocking disapproval. Even believed that dinosaur fossils were put there by god to trick us. We were dumbfounded, and even asked how he can justify that believe that flies in the face of the scientific process and science in general.

It was astounding to me that the belief was so strong he could throw away logic to believe something with no evidence (and lots to the contrary), studying to be a scientist that is evidence based and required logic and reasoning

Chagos said:

A PhD as such (alone by itself) does not denote intelligence on everything.

For instance a PhD in economics (for instance) does not automatically make the holder a recognized authority on medicine.

Anyone having acquired a PhD in any scientific field is leaving science the moment he or she attempts to validify their "belief" in creationism with it. Not because creationism is impossible but because nobody knows either way. It remains unproven and anyone claiming to have proof is deluded (at best).

Should scientific proof ever surface (be supplied) that would of course change the picture completely. It would actually supply "the more to the picture" but is currently non-existent.

Click to expand...

That is true. How many times we see people argue that "this guy has a PhD and he believes creationism or intelligent design" and it turns out his PhD is in Theology or something totally not in the scientific field.

Chagos said:

A PhD as such (alone by itself) does not denote intelligence on everything.

For instance a PhD in economics (for instance) does not automatically make the holder a recognized authority on medicine.

Anyone having acquired a PhD in any scientific field is leaving science the moment he or she attempts to validify their "belief" in creationism with it. Not because creationism is impossible but because nobody knows either way. It remains unproven and anyone claiming to have proof is deluded (at best).

Should scientific proof ever surface (be supplied) that would of course change the picture completely. It would actually supply "the more to the picture" but is currently non-existent.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you are saying here, although it doesn't address what is central to the statement. That is, not just anyone can get a PhD in Physics (for instance), which would seem to suggest a higher-order intelligence than average. However, there are also people with PhD's in Physics that are Young Earth Creationists which I well below average (in many respects) concerning their detailed perspective in how they view the world. How do we reconcile this?

You were comparing cross-disciplines, which is a solid point in-it-of-itself, however it has a lot more to do with Education level on a particular topic rather than requisite intelligence involved in attaining such information (i.e. the "learning curve" involved)

Sampson Simpson said:

I was at a conference (it was a stem cell conference, which makes it even more interesting) and my colleague invited someone to come have a drink with us. She was talking about her crazy religious fundamentalist neighbor that thought if she didn't have sex a certain amount of time with her husband he would hurt, adn that the bible said that. Anyway, we were laughing about that and she asked this guy if he was religious.

He was a PhD student, at a stem cell conference (he didn't work on embryonic stem cells) and he was a young earth creationist. It was hard to talk to him about this without showing our mocking disapproval. Even believed that dinosaur fossils were put there by god to trick us. We were dumbfounded, and even asked how he can justify that believe that flies in the face of the scientific process and science in general.

It was astounding to me that the belief was so strong he could throw away logic to believe something with no evidence (and lots to the contrary), studying to be a scientist that is evidence based and required logic and reasoning

Click to expand...

@Sampson Simpson

Yes. Good post--thank you for your contribution. Your story is touching base with the central focus of this Thread.

Now, the question is, how do we attempt to make sense of this? How could one's ability to see the world in great detail be quite advanced in some area (that they have studied) & incredibly below average/infantile in other areas that they have studied? What does this say about Human intelligence (or lack-there-of) more generally?

Note: I would "up-vote" your post, but it is not allowing me to for some reason

xMathFanx said:

I agree with what you are saying here, although it doesn't address what is central to the statement. That is, not just anyone can get a PhD in Physics (for instance), which would seem to suggest a higher-order intelligence than average. However, there are also people with PhD's in Physics that are Young Earth Creationists which I well below average (in many respects) concerning their detailed perspective in how they view the world. How do we reconcile this?

Click to expand...

We don't.

Because it's their problem, not ours.

You were comparing cross-disciplines, which is a solid point in-it-of-itself, however it has a lot more to do with Education level on a particular topic rather than requisite intelligence involved in attaining such information (i.e. the "learning curve" involved)

Click to expand...

I chose cross-discipline as a more illustrative example but one can stay in the same field. When anyone chooses to leave the scientific method in any field (even one a PhD is held in), he or she has left science altogether.

IOW the learning curve has taken a full blast hit, turning it into a mess.

xMathFanx said:

The More Intelligent One is, the Greater Ability they Possess to View the World in Detail

Consider, if this is true, how do we reconcile it with PhD Scientists who subscribe to Young Earth Creationism?

Click to expand...

Law of large numbers and social forces, such as the desire to be unique. Same reason otherwise smart people "believe" conspiracy theories in general.

Just because an idea seems wild doesn't mean it's false, either. It's just that we should tend to avoid speculation in the absence of evidence, but we can give in to temptation.

xMathFanx said:

If it is false, how would the ability to view the world in greater detail not be connected with the concept of intelligence in a logically consistent matter? Is there more to the picture than has been raised here (as of yet)?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

The world is exclusively composed of details. I wish i could succinctly summarize how complex the systems that our computers use to communicate are. They take millions of 1's and 0's in sequence, package them up, send them through miles of wires and cables and repeaters, and then the exact same sequence of 1's and 0's comes neatly out of the wrapped package on the other side of the planet.

This isn't a miracle or a coincidence. It's because teams of tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of people toiled and worked over years to develop communication protocols, worked out every detail of what happens when the cable is too long, or when one set of wires is longer than the other, or when the stars align and there's an unavoidable failure of transmission, and they handle ALL of those exceptions with error correction codes, retry modes, and protocol handshakes.

The world is composed entirely of details, so of course it is fair to claim that one dimension of intelligence is observation and/or awareness of details.

xMathFanx said:

I agree with what you are saying here, although it doesn't address what is central to the statement. That is, not just anyone can get a PhD in Physics (for instance), which would seem to suggest a higher-order intelligence than average. However, there are also people with PhD's in Physics that are Young Earth Creationists which I well below average (in many respects) concerning their detailed perspective in how they view the world. How do we reconcile this?

You were comparing cross-disciplines, which is a solid point in-it-of-itself, however it has a lot more to do with Education level on a particular topic rather than requisite intelligence involved in attaining such information (i.e. the "learning curve" involved)

Click to expand...

I'm not all that sure whether belief (here in the religious sense) and science always need to be reconciled beyond the point of somebody being able to live with (pursue) both.

There seems to be a tendency among (us) non-believers to demand this be accomplished to the point of shelving one in favor of the other.

Not something I really subscribe to since the two fields not interfering with each other doesn't make it seem necessary to me.

Of course when a JW medic (to take a more extreme example), just because his belief dictates it, refuses his child a blood transfusion that would be life saving (IOW without any alternative), that's where the buck should stop.

xMathFanx said:

~.................Note: I would "up-vote" your post, but it is not allowing me to for some reason

Click to expand...

It sometimes takes a bit of time for the "like" feature to appear.

In fact I just see that you can "like" the post now, while your post above does not yet show the like button.

Chagos said:

It sometimes takes a bit of time for the "like" feature to appear.

In fact I just see that you can "like" the post now, while your post above does not yet show the like button.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I was not aware of that

Chagos said:

I'm not all that sure whether belief (here in the religious sense) and science always need to be reconciled beyond the point of somebody being able to live with (pursue) both.

There seems to be a tendency among (us) non-believers to demand this be accomplished to the point of shelving one in favor of the other.

Click to expand...

Right. However, in this case, viewing the world as the result of "magic" only 10,000 years ago or less really is a very simplistic view of reality (as we know far too much about the World to support such a claim/vision).

I do take your point more generally though, as there are many highly intelligent Religious believers with quite nuanced views of their conception of a God or the Supernatural which is in many ways untestable and separate from the realm of what is testable (i.e. it does not require an abuse/assault on logic to believe in the way that "traditional religions" do require)

Sampson Simpson said:

That is true. How many times we see people argue that "this guy has a PhD and he believes creationism or intelligent design" and it turns out his PhD is in Theology or something totally not in the scientific field.

Click to expand...

It's one of the reasons why (some) creationists so desperately keep pooping out lists of PhD holders that also believe in creationism.

As if numbers make for validity (argument to popularity).

If creationism were not the voodoo science that it is, it would long since have found recognition within the scientific community and there'd even be PhDs issued on it.

Won't stop the idiots from trying though, yet why they simply can't confine themselves to believing whatever is beyond me.

Scrap that last bit, it isn't beyond me at all. That particular branch wants to get it onto the school curriculum.

Chagos said:

We don't.

Because it's their problem, not ours.

Click to expand...

Is it fair to state that your view is along the lines, "The fact that they are capable of seeing the World as a Young Earth Creationist, Flat-Earth Theorist, ect. ect. after looking into & thinking about the matter at some length, is in-it-of-itself strong evidence that their overall intelligence is very constrained and not necessarily that high--regardless of whether they are capable of doing/understanding very sophisticated topics elsewhere."(?)

xMathFanx said:

Right. However, in this case, viewing the world as the result of "magic" only 10,000 years ago or less really is a very simplistic view of reality (as we know far too much about the World to support such a claim/vision).

I do take your point more generally though, as there are many highly intelligent Religious believers with quite nuanced views of their conception of a God or the Supernatural which is in many ways untestable and separate from the realm of what is testable (i.e. it does not require an abuse/assault on logic to believe in the way that "traditional religions" do require)

Click to expand...

Your second paragraph is what I was alluding to.

Those described in your first paragraph are beyond help anyway.

Which is fine by me still, as long as they don't negatively interfere with science in particular or overall society in general.

xMathFanx said:

Is it fair to state that your view is along the lines, "The fact that they are capable of seeing the World as a Young Earth Creationist, Flat-Earth Theorist, ect. ect. after looking into & thinking about the matter at some length, is in-it-of-itself strong evidence that their overall intelligence is very constrained and not necessarily that high--regardless of whether they are capable of doing/understanding very sophisticated topics elsewhere."(?)

Click to expand...

With a caveat, yes. And I see that you've actually outlined said caveat with your last sentence.

To name an example, if I'm on any operating table and the surgeon is renowned for his/her skills in the respected field, I'm not particularly bothered what he or she is thinking on any field that's unrelated to the task at hand.

Because if that would spill over to the point of detriment to the impending work, he or she wouldn't be a surgeon.

xMathFanx said:

Thanks. I was not aware of that

Click to expand...

:thumbs:

Chagos said:

To name an example, if I'm on any operating table and the surgeon is renowned for his/her skills in the respected field, I'm not particularly bothered what he or she is thinking on any field that's unrelated to the task at hand.

Click to expand...

Good example.

Now, is there reason to believe that engaging in such blatant "double-think" is beneficial to one's life? As, if there is, then this would appear to be a point in favor for the "overall intelligence" level of such a person. However, if it is shown to be generally negative, than this would seem to suggest that such a person's "overall intelligence level" is lower than their specific intelligence level in certain areas that are conducive to Scientific research (for instance)?

xMathFanx said:

@Sampson Simpson

Yes. Good post--thank you for your contribution. Your story is touching base with the central focus of this Thread.

Now, the question is, how do we attempt to make sense of this? How could one's ability to see the world in great detail be quite advanced in some area (that they have studied) & incredibly below average/infantile in other areas that they have studied? What does this say about Human intelligence (or lack-there-of) more generally?

Note: I would "up-vote" your post, but it is not allowing me to for some reason

Click to expand...

Personally, I believe it is an evolutionary trait and people are predisposed genetically to have faith. I believe it was Dawkins theory (but I never read the booK The God Gene) that belief in higher power is genetically predisposed in humans. An evolutionary trait that allowed humans to deal with their higher intelligence, idea of self, and questions about the universe. So the ability to believe something made up to attempt to answer the unknowable was beneficial to early humans. Maybe helped instill "morals" since being a social species was important.

For me (as well as my brother) I never believed. My dad took us to sunday school and church, but my mom never came except for special events like communion and confirmation (raised Lutheran). I always hated church, thought it was stupid. My brother was smarter and he questioned everything they taught him. I just went along with it. Thankfully my dad was cool about it and said once we were confirmed we didn't have to go, and I never went again after that.

I think that is the only explanation how seemingly intelligent people can throw away all logic and reasoning they use in their lives to believe in religion, and do it so strongly and convincingly. I also think those that get offended or angry by other religions, people questioning their religion,etc, do so because they are insecure. Deep down in their brain there is a logical part that knows they have no support, proof, evidence, argument for their beliefs, while another part of their brain that wants it to be true so bad.

xMathFanx said:

Good example.

Now, is there reason to believe that engaging in such blatant "double-think" is beneficial to one's life?

Click to expand...

One would have to ask the person so inclined.

To me it wouldn't be but I'm hardly the measure of all things.

As, if there is, then this would appear to be a point in favor for the "overall intelligence" level of such a person. However, if it is shown to be generally negative, than this would seem to suggest that such a person's "overall intelligence level" is lower than their specific intelligence level in certain areas that are conducive to Scientific research (for instance)?

Click to expand...

I'll let you in on a secret if you promise not to tell.

EVERYbody's overall intelligence level is widely over-estimated. Especially by themselves.:mrgreen:

If true, it doesn’t mean all intelligent people,see the world in greater detail. It means they are more likely to. And since people with PhDs in scientific disciplines subscribe to young earth creationism in far smaller percentages than the general public, I don’t see any inconsistency.

xMathFanx said:

Good example.

Now, is there reason to believe that engaging in such blatant "double-think" is beneficial to one's life? As, if there is, then this would appear to be a point in favor for the "overall intelligence" level of such a person. However, if it is shown to be generally negative, than this would seem to suggest that such a person's "overall intelligence level" is lower than their specific intelligence level in certain areas that are conducive to Scientific research (for instance)?

Click to expand...

I think there is beneficial aspect to belief (before I proceed, I should not I'm not saying these aspects are lacking in those that don't believe. A sense of importance, meaning. Feelings that things will work out because someone is looking after you. When your beat down, feeling that you'll be OK because someone is looking after you. This tends to put people in a frame of mind where they make improvement in their lives. And for some people, morals they get from religion. I would be willing to bet that there are people out there that if they knew religion wasn't real, they may not hold back. It's a lame reason to be good to people, that your scared of god, but I'm sure some people are like that.

Of course, there are a lot of negative aspects and history (and still today) has shown those negative aspect of religion making people destroy things, block progress, be hateful, violent, and other bad things

Skeptic Bob said:

If true, it doesn’t mean all intelligent people,see the world in greater detail. It means they are more likely to. And since people with PhDs in scientific disciplines subscribe to young earth creationism in far smaller percentages than the general public, I don’t see any inconsistency.

Click to expand...

Right. I was setting up an extreme example to start the conversation. However, if you look at the National Academy of Sciences in the US for instance (i.e. the Elite Scientists), then you find they are much less likely to believe in such simplistic & erroneous worldviews as compared to the "general public"

Chagos said:

I'll let you in on a secret if you promise not to tell.

EVERYbody's overall intelligence level is widely over-estimated. Especially by themselves.:mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I understand what you mean by the second point, but not the first. That is, yes, individuals tend to have an inflated view of themselves, however why would this necessarily carry over into the objective study of the population at large? Unless, of course, you are referring to Human Intelligence generally, as compared to conceivable levels of "intelligence" elsewhere(?)

xMathFanx said:

I understand what you mean by the second point, but not the first. That is, yes, individuals tend to have an inflated view of themselves, however why would this necessarily carry over into the objective study of the population at large? Unless, of course, you are referring to Human Intelligence generally, as compared to conceivable levels of "intelligence" elsewhere(?)

Click to expand...

I am.

And IMO the "inflation" aspect does not limit itself to the individual's view of him- or herself, but also extends to any group's (collective) view of itself. Humankind being one of those.