- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
20 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelBbarring the rest of your post ( 😉 ), would you say there is a difference in the notions of intelligence because of devotion?
"Yes, indeed there is."
Bbarring the rest of your post ( 😉 ), would you say there is a difference in the notions of intelligence because of devotion?
"the Church is the infallible teacher of reality." Really? How so? By contsantly refferring to one little piece of 'reality', (ie. JC's visit to Earth), and ignorring virtually all the rest of that which is real. Reality. Hmmm?
Yes. That reminds me of one very famous Catholic theologian, Bernard Lonergan, who described mortal sin as 'radical unintellibility'. His argument was that when someone knowingly and deliberately commits an act of evil which subverts their relationship with God, that decision cannot be understood; it is a grossly irrational act.
"the Church is the infallible teacher of reality." Really? How so? By contsantly refferring to one little piece of 'reality', (ie. JC's visit to Earth), and ignorring virtually all the rest of that which is real. Reality. Hmmm?
I am not advancing my own views; I am merely paraphrasing the argument of the author of this book. Of course, no Christian would ever characterise Jesus as "a little piece of reality". In orthodox Christianity, Jesus is the logos of all creation, its alpha and omega, or as St Bonaventure called him, "the hidden centre of the universe". Anyway, this does not reflect my own beliefs. I am simply illustrating how in religious debates, debaters will pathologise their opponents.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
20 Jun 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI don't think I do that. I think the position that somebody is cognitively deficient in terms of capacity simply because they disagree with me, is absurd.
Yes, indeed there is. There is a very popular, although dated, Catholic apologetic book entitled Theology is sanity. The premise behind this title, explained in the forward, is that sanity is, essentially, a state in which the mind perceives and interprets reality correctly, whereas insanity is the state in which the mind rejects or misunderstands re ...[text shortened]... f the moment, everyone on this forum is likely to accuse their opponent of some mental defect.
20 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau K"No Christian would ever characterize Jesus as a little piece of reality"- with this quote you have summed up the Christian view very well.
[b]Bbarring the rest of your post ( 😉 ), would you say there is a difference in the notions of intelligence because of devotion?
Yes. That reminds me of one very famous Catholic theologian, Bernard Lonergan, who described mortal sin as 'radical unintellibility'. His argument was that when someone knowingly and deliberately commits an act of evil wh ply illustrating how in religious debates, debaters will pathologise their opponents.[/b]
Of course I am not a christian, but I'm a Jesus believer. I Even believe that he may have been tha alpha-and-omega-type dude.
Its still most accurate for me describe JC as a "little piece of reality", no matter how influencial he may have been in Earthly affairs. (Bear in mind all the stars you see at night when contemplating what I mean by "reality" )
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
20 Jun 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkI don't think I do that. I think the position that somebody is cognitively deficient in terms of capacity simply because they disagree with me, is absurd.
I don't think I do that. I think the position that somebody is cognitively deficient in terms of capacity simply because they disagree with me, is absurd.
That was not quite view I expressed at all. I do not think that someone is cognitively deficient simply because they disagree. The view I expressed is that when there is vehement and protracted debate and one side obstinately refuses to concede, this is a sign of some deficiency (perhaps they lack the cognitive faculties to understand the argument; perhaps they are so ideologically committed to their view that they cannot change; perhaps they are too slovenly to try to understand their opponent.) I think I have seen everyone on this forum reach that conclusion at some point.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
20 Jun 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI don't think adding adjectives really alters your view. So what if it is a case of vehement and protracted disagreement. The only thing you have added is passion and time. It does not matter whether I fail to convince you of this point quickly and amicably or the reverse. It is simply not the case, however long and bitter it gets, that I will assume or deduce you are deficient in some way.
[b]I don't think I do that. I think the position that somebody is cognitively deficient in terms of capacity simply because they disagree with me, is absurd.
That was not quite view I expressed at all. I do not think that someone is cognitively deficient simply because they disagree. The view I expressed is that when there is vehement and prot ...[text shortened]... heir opponent.) I think I have seen everyone on this forum reach that conclusion at some point.[/b]
So if you think you have seen me reach such a conclusion, you are mistaken. I am your counter example. 🙂
20 Jun 10
Originally posted by Conrau KHis argument was that when someone knowingly and deliberately commits an act of evil which subverts their relationship with God, that decision cannot be understood; it is a grossly irrational act.
[b]Bbarring the rest of your post ( 😉 ), would you say there is a difference in the notions of intelligence because of devotion?
Yes. That reminds me of one very famous Catholic theologian, Bernard Lonergan, who described mortal sin as 'radical unintellibility'. His argument was that when someone knowingly and deliberately commits an act of evil wh ...[text shortened]... ply illustrating how in religious debates, debaters will pathologise their opponents.[/b]
Similar thinking on my part makes it difficult for me to understand how Christians can be so adamant about people always making choices to sin, and how you deserve to be punished because you chose to be an evil person consciously.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
20 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord SharkI don't think adding adjectives really alters your view.
I don't think adding adjectives really alters your view. So what if it is a case of vehement and protracted disagreement. The only thing you have added is passion and time. It does not matter whether I fail to convince you of this point quickly and amicably or the reverse. It is simply not the case, however long and bitter it gets, that I will assume or d ...[text shortened]... think you have seen me reach such a conclusion, you are mistaken. I am your counter example. 🙂
Well, adjectives do of course add meanings.
It is simply not the case, however long and bitter it gets, that I will assume or deduce you are deficient in some way.
Really? Then why do you think that I so obstinately refuse to concede your point?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
20 Jun 10
Originally posted by Conrau KWell, adjectives do of course add meanings.
[b]I don't think adding adjectives really alters your view.
Well, adjectives do of course add meanings.
It is simply not the case, however long and bitter it gets, that I will assume or deduce you are deficient in some way.
Really? Then why do you think that I so obstinately refuse to concede your point?[/b]
Often.
Really? Then why do you think that I so obstinately refuse to concede your point?
I can't know the answer to that. but here are some possible answers:
1) I'm unskilled and unaware of it, and wrong.
2) I'm right but unable to articulate the point well enough.
3) Whilst it is rational for me to believe p given the evidence available to me, it is rational for you to believe ~p given the evidence you have.
I could probably do this late into the night, but you get the idea...
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkWell, 3) can be discarded. By 'protracted', I had assumed that all evidence would have been shared. 1) and 2) were exactly the defects I had mentioned earlier.
[b]Well, adjectives do of course add meanings.
Often.
Really? Then why do you think that I so obstinately refuse to concede your point?
I can't know the answer to that. but here are some possible answers:
1) I'm unskilled and unaware of it, and wrong.
2) I'm right but unable to articulate the point well enough.
3) Whilst it is rationa ...[text shortened]... e evidence you have.
I could probably do this late into the night, but you get the idea...[/b]
Anyway, I am not prescribing how intelligence ought to be defined. If you wish to stipulate some normative definition, I would probably be sympathetic. That, however, is a separate issue. The issue at present is how intelligence is deployed by speakers and whether theists and atheists may have different understandings of intelligence.
My intuition holds that it would be quite natural to construe those as unintellgent whose opinions differ radically from ours. Obviously a psychologist requires a more scientific definition of intelligence and philosophers like you and Bbar aspire to a higher standard of academic courtesy than to cast off opponents as unintelligent. That's not really the point; the point is that language-users would be inclined to do so. I am reminded of Foucault's idea of stigmatisation and how we use discourses of criminality and psychiatry to marginalise minorities as lawbreakers or madmen. Intelligence is likely a similar discourse.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI disagree that 3) can be discarded quite so easily because doing so rests on the assumption that it is possible to share all relevant evidence in all dialogues in this medium. I don't think that is the case.
Well, 3) can be discarded. By 'protracted', I had assumed that all evidence would have been shared. 1) and 2) were exactly the defects I had mentioned earlier.
Anyway, I am not prescribing how intelligence ought to be defined. If you wish to stipulate some normative definition, I would probably be sympathetic. That, however, is a separate issue. The iss ...[text shortened]... marginalise minorities as lawbreakers or madmen. Intelligence is likely a similar discourse.
You make the point that 1) and 2) are possible defects that you have mentioned. But I'm not disputing that people can have these defects. I also agree that people do in fact construe those with radically different opinions as unintelligent and that stigmatisation might sometimes be a motive.
I was making two points, perhaps my first is pedantic, so I'm sorry about that, it was that your claim that everybody does this is false, I don't. My second was that to assume one's opponent is unintelligent just on the evidence of protracted dialogues on here, seems like hubris. Not only does it assume that the likes of my 1) and 2) are on the opponent's side and that 3 is false, it assumes that performance in dialogues of this sort correlates with intelligence. Now even if we are not dealing with some definition of intelligence endorsed by psychologists, this seems to me to be unwarranted. (Leaving aside the daunting prospect of getting agreement within any academic discipline on what constitutes intelligence of course).
Of course it might very well be the case that my position is self refuting 🙂
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelI see intelligence as the extrapolation -in real time and/ or through time- of one's perception to the realm of forming at will or subconsciously mental patterns out of cognizance; therefore the differences between the various ideas of the actual products of the faculty we name "intelligence" are in my opinion analogous to one's evaluation of the mind
I'm in intereseted in the differences between an athiests idea of intelligence and a theists idea of intelligence. Anyone?
😵
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI rather doubt that all relevant evidence gets shared even after protracted debate. In most unresolved debates on this forum, I go away with the feeling that we have failed to communicate to each other our relative positions and evidence.
Well, 3) can be discarded. By 'protracted', I had assumed that all evidence would have been shared. 1) and 2) were exactly the defects I had mentioned earlier.
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by black beetleI'm having trouble understanding.
I see intelligence as the extrapolation -in real time and/ or through time- of one's perception to the realm of forming at will or subconsciously mental patterns out of cognizance; therefore the differences between the various ideas of the actual products of the faculty we name "intelligence" are in my opinion analogous to one's evaluation of the mind
😵
Do you think intelligence exists without a brain? Or does a brain need to be formed to develop ideas of "inteligence"?
I want to get this str8 so I can more accuratley understand my own ideas of intelligence.
Sometimes what is considered "intelligent" can just be people using their cognative functions quicker than others. The resulting boost in ego seems counter intuitive/unintelligent, in my way of thinking.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
21 Jun 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkI disagree that 3) can be discarded quite so easily because doing so rests on the assumption that it is possible to share all relevant evidence in all dialogues in this medium. I don't think that is the case.
I disagree that 3) can be discarded quite so easily because doing so rests on the assumption that it is possible to share all relevant evidence in all dialogues in this medium. I don't think that is the case.
You make the point that 1) and 2) are possible defects that you have mentioned. But I'm not disputing that people can have these defects. I also ...[text shortened]... course).
Of course it might very well be the case that my position is self refuting 🙂
I do not believe I said that protracted debate would inevitably lead to a comprehensive exchange of evidence; I only said that that is was I had meant when I had used the word 'protracted'. It is not really important to me whether or not protracted debate achieves this.
I was making two points, perhaps my first is pedantic, so I'm sorry about that, it was that your claim that everybody does this is false, I don't.
I don't believe I said that everyone does that. I said it was natural to do that and I said that I had seen almost everyone do so. Mind you, when I use the word 'defect', I do not mean mental retardation -- just that, in the broadest sense, there is some lacking or failure on the part of one person (whether a mental/cognitive deficiency, or just laziness or unwillingness to understand the arguments.)
My second was that to assume one's opponent is unintelligent just on the evidence of protracted dialogues on here, seems like hubris. Not only does it assume that the likes of my 1) and 2) are on the opponent's side and that 3 is false, it assumes that performance in dialogues of this sort correlates with intelligence. Now even if we are not dealing with some definition of intelligence endorsed by psychologists, this seems to me to be unwarranted. (Leaving aside the daunting prospect of getting agreement within any academic discipline on what constitutes intelligence of course).
Firstly, I certainly did not say that disagreement indicates unintelligence. That was not my claim. I have suggested many other possible conclusions.
Secondly, and I think this is the very crux of the dispute, we just have different views of language. I am thinking more from a constructivist view -- while there might be scientific measures of people's cognitive capacities, meanings of 'intelligence' are socially constructed and it is inevitable that people will deem the dominant or hegemonic ideas to be sane, intelligent and rational. A theist will seem deluded to an atheist; an atheist will seem insane to the theist. We pathologise abnormality.