Doesn't seem to have worked out that way in the EU. If guns were so easy to get why don't we see comparable levela of gun-related violence?
So much for abstract prognostication.
How well do low IQ people have the ability to understand what science can and cannot do?
The odds that any of those data points lacks that understanding seems to increase exponentially as you move down the IQ scale. That's where it moves toward a god belief.
We're talking about NZ. It worked out that way there. It wasn't prognostication.
Out of concern that gun sales might be significantly restricted, Radio New Zealand reported that there was a rush on gun stores this weekend, with people “panic buying” weapons. - NYT
I think his point is that there are certain intractable problems for science that, when science eventually explains away all the "easier" stuff, future human cultures might fill in the gaps with metaphysics or new religions (smart people are doing this, and in the latter case, are developing new secular religions that I find more ridiculous than traditional religions. Just read any of Ray Kurzweil or Frank Tipler's babble).
What you mentioned isn't evidence to suggest knowing more leads people back to religion. It's just an example of how hard it is for people to let go, but let go they do... eventually, unless they have a low IQ.
Very well if taught it properly.
Its not like some higher math where you have to apply patterns.
, you dont even have to know how to read.
IQ is a bs quotient. There is so much it does not measure. Most useful in finding those who have real learning disabilities and are exceptionally low.
You can throw out the rest. Especially high. Hes a genius... BS. Genius at what, taking an IQ test.
Last edited by pgardn; 03-17-2019 at 12:19 PM.
To reiterate, pgardn's observation is pretty astute in how people will look for replacements to conventional religion as scientism and techno-fetishism gain traction over the next century. We like to think of "smart people" who are "science minded" as supremely rational agents who'd never be inclined toward supers ious or irrational beliefs. All I have to say to that is. This ridiculous concept was discussed on a web forum that, get this, promoted cold rationality. The concept was so troubling to some members, the owner went so far as to ban all discussion of the concept.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk
Long read, so I'll tl;dr it. The person feared that when the "AI God" eventually emerged in some not too distant future, that said AI God would create simulations of all the people who didn't help bring about its existence and punish their simulations for eternity, since their failing to help bring said God into existence sooner resulted in the deaths of millions of people (i.e. if AI God came earlier, he might've been able to solve climate change or some other calamity that would've saved lives). These people no doubt perform well on your standard IQ tests.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 03-17-2019 at 12:16 PM.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...b-hosts-warned
On Saturday, journalist Nick Monroe reported that New Zealand police have warned citizens that they face imprisonment for distributing the video, while popular New Zealand Facebook group Wellington Live notes that "NZ police would like to remind the public that it is an offence to share an objectional publication which includes the horrific video from yesterday's attack. If you see this video, report it immediately. Do not download it. Do not share it. If you are found to have a copy of the video or to have shared it, you face fines & potential imprisonment."
New Zealand, Australia and the UK don't have anything resembling the 1st Amendment.While the Christchurch attacks were utterly reprehensible, supporting them is now punishable in the United Kingdom. On Saturday afternoon, a 24-year-old man from Oldham was arrested on su ion of sending malicious communications in support of the mosque attacks. It is unclear what he is alleged to have written.
That will be fewer gaps than we have today, so fewer metaphysical gap fillers. People with the tendency to say " it, must be some invisible all knowing deity doing it" aren't at the precipice of discovery.
The really impressive part of science is that it does a pretty good job at predictions as long as they are not really long term and not variable ridden.To reiterate, pgardn's observation is pretty astute in how people will look for replacements to conventional religion as scientism and techno-fetishism gain traction over the next century. We like to think of "smart people" who are "science minded" as supremely rational agents who'd never be inclined toward supers ious or irrational beliefs. All I have to say to that is
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk
Long read, so I'll tl;dr it. The person feared that when the "AI God" eventually emerged in some not too distant future, that said AI God would create simulations of all the people who didn't help bring about its existence and punish their simulations for eternity, since their failing to help bring said God into existence sooner resulted in the deaths of millions of people (i.e. if AI God came earlier, he might've been able to solve climate change or some other calamity that would've saved lives). These people no doubt perform well on your standard IQ tests.
This is very powerful, yet not close to what are always called really big questions that continue to arise. The more we learn, the more we find out there are holes in our reasoning and capabilities. I actually dont see a good argument for even (whatever conventional religions are defined as) going away. Im thinking modern day, monotheistic stuff that is widespread. Religion fills the gap in what we can know. And we do want to pretend we know. Its comforting.
So there are no people with low learning capability?
Regardless how much credence you lend to IQ, all of the data points are based on the same test and yet you don't see the mental prisoners escaping the silo until the IQs get higher. If you have another intelligence or income level or education level test you want to use to show a reverse trend, go for it.
I highly doubt you'll have anything that shows dumber people become more atheist through examination of the facts.
I don't think pg was suggesting that they are, just that when we reach the end of science or at the very least arrive at a point where progress is excruciatingly slow, like thousands of years between discoveries, new insights, people will turn to some form of mumbo jumbo for comfort. As I said, they already are. Elon Musk and many "smart people" think an all knowing computer programmer is doing it (simulation argument, another idiotic idea that has traction with some academics, believe it or not).
IQ test is first and foremost for finding exceptionally low level abilities.
There are a number of basic to difficult reasoning tests. If they could be read to people and or illustrated I bet you would find some incredible surprises with ability to manipulate complex shapes in 3-d, musical prowess, on and on... These wont show up on tests designed to weed out people of exceptionally low ability due to some basic brain disorder that we cant figure out right now.
Well no, Pgardn said the following:To reiterate, pgardn's observation is pretty astute in how people will look for replacements to conventional religion as scientism and techno-fetishism gain traction over the next century. We like to think of "smart people" who are "science minded" as supremely rational agents who'd never be inclined toward supers ious or irrational beliefs. All I have to say to that is
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk
Long read, so I'll tl;dr it. The person feared that when the "AI God" eventually emerged in some not too distant future, that said AI God would create simulations of all the people who didn't help bring about its existence and punish their simulations for eternity, since their failing to help bring said God into existence sooner resulted in the deaths of millions of people (i.e. if AI God came earlier, he might've been able to solve climate change or some other calamity that would've saved lives). These people no doubt perform well on your standard IQ tests.
Along with technology getting better we also understand better how limited we are in our assumptions about the universe through science . In fact I could say the opposite might happen . Once people really understand how science is done and understand our brains better , we will find out how little we know or how little we can know, and become more open to metaphysical or supernatural beliefs
What is supernatural or metaphysical about AI? Even thinking AI could control humans isn't supernatural or metaphysical.
I don't discount that people can score low on IQ tests and still have abilities (autism, for example). I don't discount that the tests are geared toward a certain segment of the population either. I am saying that the data shows just the opposite of what you propose. What data are you using to support your supposition or is it just a feeling you have?
Mumbo jumbo isn't metaphysical or supernatural. It could be irrational, but that's a different thing altogether. Some of the highest IQ people were irrational based on the common mindset.
These fringe ideas you're talking about are nowhere near the mean. They aren't representative of science or atheism. The trend is away from god belief, not toward it. Do you disagree?
IQ does test a narrow range of intellect based around making connections between abstract concepts, and yes, the type of problem solving skills measured on IQ tests does strongly correlate to success in academia and professional life. But we're conflating problem solving and rationality/wisdom. They can be mutually exclusive mental traits. Jeffrey Skilling no doubt had a high IQ, but his arrogance and narcissism overrode his rationality (no one in their right mind would think they'd eventually get away with a con that big).
I'm not sure what you're debating here. Do you have any evidence to suggest that increased intelligence leads to god belief, yes or no?
The simulation argument is just as ridiculous a concept as a "sky daddy." , it's basically the same thing. My point here is that we kind of fetishize the ideas of "high IQ" people as always worthy of consideration because they have status as a PhD, inventor, etc, when much of the time they don't know what they're talking about when they step out of their domains, or tell some pop-sci magazine about how their latest science fiction fantasy is "just around the corner."
And Im saying that data says nothing of the sort if you line it up on the axis of atheism.
Im saying its laughable that you line it up against a test designed to find people of exceptionally weak capabilities in what we consider basic capabilities in today's world.
Do a survey on people who are philosophers of what science is and does and you will get what you want.
If Supernatural is defined as something we cant know, you are going to get people who believe in supernatural.
There are some very complex yet fundamental flaws in what we consider good reasoning.
It might be ridiculous but it's not supernatural or metaphysical. It's falsifiable, ergo not the same.
You latched onto the IQ aspect of the topic and didn't address the trend. You still haven't. Forget the IQ aspect. Let's just say higher education level. Are you going to argue that some home schooled people with street smarts are actually smarter than college professors?
Just use whatever criteria you choose to decide intelligence, because the caveat is "they are at the precipice of learning". They cannot learn much more.
To some people, science cannot do much now. They have no idea how anything works so they are in essence where the hypothetical future people would be anyhow. Are these people what you personally consider to be intelligent?
Then show your data.
My argument is that people of higher intelligence are essentially no different in this regard because that "god belief" often takes a different form, like credulous belief in unscientific concepts such as nanotechnology, cryonics, AI gods, universe as a simulation. Smart people have always been supers ious. Many of history's greatest minds were religious. Pgardn made a good point that when conventional religious belief dissolves, it's replaced by something else that makes "little bit more sense," (i.e. monotheism made more sense than paganism in those days, and today, belief in science fiction fantasy makes more sense than monotheistic religions).
This is so very true.
Your run of the mill PHDs in science dont bother with the philosophy behind science, they dont need to.
But you are more likely to find people in this group who actually do bother to question very fundamental stuff concerning what they are doing.
In my experience, some of the most ill-informed people concerning "intelligent" life on other planets are physics types who have no true understanding of biological evolution as we understand it know, biological nervous systems, and have not even defined intelligent. imo the SETI stuff was absolutely ridiculous. But possibly fun.
You're using false equivalence to suggest any belief not supported by evidence is the same as theism. This approach fails if you consider the concept of falsifiablity. God claims are not falsifiable which is why so many different gods are believed to exist. We could create a few more right here and they could be just as safe from being disproved.
So again, do you have any data to suggest that people with higher learning are more apt to have metaphysical or supernatural beliefs than people with lower learning?
All this rebuttal you two are offering is just "education is overrated" talk. While it could be true that some education is overrated, and no doubt the anecdotes are likely true, it has nothing to do with whether or not learning about science and the world around you is directly proportional or inversely proportional to belief in the supernatural or metaphysical.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
