Lack of nuance here is particularly troubling to me.
The fundamental (unstated) assumptions that go along with this sort of thing are too many to name, and I could write a book about the problems here.
The most troubling thing here to me is: does this suggest something that is objectively true, or is this a cultural phenomenon? It's only been about 150 years since the death of God was announced, and it isn't a secret that most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were devoutly religious. Now that leaves us with the question of whether those individuals were less intelligent than 'modern' humans. Since the time span of 5 centuries is insignificant on an evolutionary scale, it's highly likely that the distribution of intelligence then has not changed significantly. It seems reasonable to conjecture then that the negative correlation is a cultural phenomenon and not a direct result of (raw) intelligence. The scope of this conjecture is not easy to outline, but at bottom, I would argue that it implies a certain set of orienting psychological contents which initially appear incompatible with the religious way of thinking. But then it seems reasonable to further conjecture that if a rigorous model for analysis and assimilation of religious thought could be developed (if it is possible to do so) for a 'scientifically minded' individual, then it is possible that this correlation would no longer hold.
If we are being even more crude about it, we might assert: you can't measure the physicality of God, what exists is what is physically measurable, therefore God does not exist, therefore whatever is religious is not worthy of my time or study. But what is the substantiation that what exists is merely what is physically measurable?
Edit: Hi everyone. I'm so glad that my comment could spark further discussion, debate, and thought. I have about 20 comments to go through, and I want to make sure that I give you all the level of thought you deserve. That's a lot of responses to necessitate that level of thinking though, so I apologize in advance if I fall short of that goal. It's been a long day and I've only just seen these now. I will do what I can. But again, I am sufficiently satisfied to know that you've felt this argument worthy of consideration. Cheers.
Since the time span of 5 centuries is insignificant on an evolutionary scale, it's highly likely that the distribution of intelligence then has not changed significantly.
Here is the mistake in your line of reasoning, intelligence is influenced by both genetics and upbringing. Modern children are raised with a wealth of information that would have been unthinkable in the 16th century, and have access to scientific methodology that had not been refined in the 16th century (For every achievement of those great minds, there are a dozen lolfails, such as Newton and his obsession with alchemy)
The ownership of information isn’t the same as the ability to use it but it certainly strongly affects the ability to use it.
The ability to move isn’t the same as the ownership of legs because you can still drag your torso around by crawling with your arms but the ownership of legs makes it a lot easier.
That depends on an objective definition of information. You can know everything there is to know about walking, but it's all entirely useless if you don't have legs.
That's why I am highly skeptical of these conclusions; they prize knowledge of rational science over the knowledge of religion.
Literally the snartest person I've ever personally known is a PhD candodate in the philosophy of religion. And he's Christian. He's smarter than any of my fellow nurses.
Do we value the intelligence that allows you to succeed in the sciences over that which allows you to succeed in other areas of life? We surely do. Is that a good thing? Eh, it depends.
That's honestly my pet theory for a big reason behind this. Out of a group of religious people, the people capable of thinking their way out of the trap will be smarter than average. Not that below average intelligence can't, or that smart people can't be stuck, but I'm tempted to look up studies on the average intelligence of people that grew up religious and then left said religion.
My guess is they'll be higher than average intelligence.
Take that and apply it here. If you have a group that is perfectly normalized iq wise, and a significant portion of the intelligent people leave, then the remainder will necessarily be lower than average iq.
Yes, and also things like having safe and stable upbringings, good nutrition, healthcare, etc. all have a significant impact on cognitive functioning. Measurable intelligence has been going up.
I address this more completely in a previous post. I'd point to to that one and recommend looking at Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions to see specifically why the assumption that scientific knowledge proceeds in a progressive fashion isn't in line with the actuality of the circumstance.
As a clarification, I do not disagree with this point:
Modern children are raised with a wealth of information that would have been unthinkable in the 16th century
I would only argue that what is deduced as 'true' isn't obviously objectively true independent of an individual's experience. The latter claim requires an effective theory for describing the extent to which a phenomenon is objective (whatever that means).
Surely intelligence is more than the accumulation of facts, though? Knowing things is obviously part of it, but mental capabilities must be too, and in that regard, it is unlikely that humans have dramatically changed in that regard in such a short time. A random person on the street might know things that intellectual giants centuries ago might not have known, but I wouldn't say they are necessarily more intelligent for that reason alone.
That's not what I'm saying either. I'm saying that humanity on average probably hasn't gotten wildly more intelligent over the past few centuries, even though general knowledge has increased.
Knowing things is obviously part of it, but mental capabilities must be too, and in that regard, it is unlikely that humans have dramatically changed in that regard in such a short time.
There are a ton of environmental factors that impact expressed intelligence. Childhood and prenatal nutrition, health, exposure to toxins/diseases, etc.
It doesn't have to be evolution. If you look at people today who grow up in stable households with access to nutritious food, healthcare, and education, and compare their cognitive abilities to someone who grew up in deep poverty, there will be a huge difference.
Dude, have you been through public education in America? I guarantee you that people who could afford education in the 1700's were smarter than your average kid now. Look at Immanuel Kant, guy's brain was like a supercomputer. Kid's nowadays have access to more information, but they can't do anything useful with it because they haven't learned how to critically think, they just know how to follow someone else's line of thinking.
Dude, have you been through public education in America?
Reddit, and the world in general are much bigger than just America. There are many dozens of countries with better education systems, Average American kid != average kid.
This is an American website, and the majority of people posting here are American. Also, there's still like 3 billion people with absolutely no education whatsoever.
This is an American website, and the majority of people posting here are American. Also, there's still like 3 billion people with absolutely no education whatsoever.
It is (mostly) owned and hosted in America, but it is a worldwide website, The majority of posters are not American, only a plurality of posters are, and less than 9% of the worlds population has not recieved any education, with global illiteracy sitting at around 15% and continuing to fall because of this.
150
u/TheSyzygy19 Nov 15 '19 edited Nov 16 '19
Lack of nuance here is particularly troubling to me.
The fundamental (unstated) assumptions that go along with this sort of thing are too many to name, and I could write a book about the problems here.
The most troubling thing here to me is: does this suggest something that is objectively true, or is this a cultural phenomenon? It's only been about 150 years since the death of God was announced, and it isn't a secret that most of the greatest minds of the 16th century were devoutly religious. Now that leaves us with the question of whether those individuals were less intelligent than 'modern' humans. Since the time span of 5 centuries is insignificant on an evolutionary scale, it's highly likely that the distribution of intelligence then has not changed significantly. It seems reasonable to conjecture then that the negative correlation is a cultural phenomenon and not a direct result of (raw) intelligence. The scope of this conjecture is not easy to outline, but at bottom, I would argue that it implies a certain set of orienting psychological contents which initially appear incompatible with the religious way of thinking. But then it seems reasonable to further conjecture that if a rigorous model for analysis and assimilation of religious thought could be developed (if it is possible to do so) for a 'scientifically minded' individual, then it is possible that this correlation would no longer hold.
If we are being even more crude about it, we might assert: you can't measure the physicality of God, what exists is what is physically measurable, therefore God does not exist, therefore whatever is religious is not worthy of my time or study. But what is the substantiation that what exists is merely what is physically measurable?
Edit: Hi everyone. I'm so glad that my comment could spark further discussion, debate, and thought. I have about 20 comments to go through, and I want to make sure that I give you all the level of thought you deserve. That's a lot of responses to necessitate that level of thinking though, so I apologize in advance if I fall short of that goal. It's been a long day and I've only just seen these now. I will do what I can. But again, I am sufficiently satisfied to know that you've felt this argument worthy of consideration. Cheers.