Reason for success of religon

[chezlaw]

I don't much like this idea and at best it only applies to religous types that deny reason in favour of literalism but suppose DS is right that these people are less intelligent, then its to their advantage to create an environment that minimises the advantage of being more intelligent. Why would someone poor at logic want a world in which people who are good at logic do best?

Although there's an argument that they do absolutely better in such a world, most people want a world in which they do relatively well.

chez

[DougShrapnel]

If they are poor at logic, how can they come to the conclusion that its to their advantage to create an environment that minimises the advantage of being more intelligent?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If they are poor at logic, how can they come to the conclusion that its to their advantage to create an environment that minimises the advantage of being more intelligent?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not by design. Its failry obviously found by trial and error that they don't compete well at activities requiring thinking but do compete well at activities requiring believing.

chez

[John21]

I don't think it's fair to say it's an innate intelligence issue as much as culturally determined.

I remember reading a Soviet assessment of the general Middle East culture, concluding it was essentially the Hun culture. That might seem like a superficial view, but it was quite an in depth cultural study. Ultimately summed up by saying the culture was deprived of the information and open dialog that has occurred in Western Civilization, basically leaving them 50-100 years behind the 18th century Enlightenment that occurred in Europe.

[chezlaw]

put it another way;

If people of lessor intelligence want to do relatively well then is creating an environment where the advantage of being more intelligent is reduced exactly what they want?

If so, do succesful literalist religons achieve this to some extent.

chez

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
put it another way;

If people of lessor intelligence want to do relatively well then is creating an environment where the advantage of being more intelligent is reduced exactly what they want?

If so, do succesful literalist religons achieve this to some extent.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

...and the meek shall inherit the earth. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[vhawk01]

Someone quick post all the "I will make the wise foolish" passages, or however they go. I know the Bible is a big fan of dumb people, not so much of the Brights.

[DougShrapnel]

The apple was knowledge. Having knowledge is a sin.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
There are two classes of created beings in this world, the godlike and the demonic; the godlike class has been described at length; now hear from me, O son of Pritha, about the demonic.

Demonic persons know neither action or inaction, neither purity nor correct conduct nor truthfulness are in them. They say the universe is devoid of truth, devoid of fixed principle, and devoid of a ruler, produced by union of male and female caused by lust, and nothing else. Holding this view, these enemies of the world, of ruined selves, of little knowledge, and of ferocious actions, are born for the destruction of the world.

Entertaining insatiable desire, full of vanity, ostentariousness and frenzy, they adopt false notions through delusion and engage in unholy observances.

Indulging in boundless thoughts ending with death, given up to the enjoyment of objects of desire, being resolved that that is all there is to existence, bound down by nets and traps of hopes in hundreds, given up to anger and desire, they wish to obtain heaps of wealth unfairly so that the might enjoy objects of desire.

This have I obtained, today this wish I will obtain; this wealth is mine, and this also shall be mine; this foe I have killed, others too I will destroy; I am lord, I am the enjoyer, I am perfect, strong, happy; I have wealth; I am of noble birth; who else is like me? I will sacrifice; I will make gifts; I will rejoice.

Thus deluded by ignorance, tossed about by numerous thoughts, surrounded by the net of delusion, and attached to the enjoyment of objects of desire, they fall down into impure hell.

Honored only by themselves, lacking all humility, and full of the pride and frenzy of wealth, these rumor-mongers and scandalizers of the virtuous perform sacrifices which are sacrifices only in name, only so that other men may see and against prescribed rules; indulging their vanity, brute force, arrogance, lust, and anger, and hating me in their own bodies and in those of others.

These enemies, ferocious, meanest of men, and unholy, I continually hurl down to these worlds, only into demonic wombs. Coming into demonic wombs, deluded in every birth, they rapidly devolve to the lowest and the vilest state, O son of Kunti, without ever coming to me.

Threefold is this way to hell,—ruinous to the self—lust,anger, and likewise avarice. Therefore, one should abandon this triad. Released from these three ways to darkness, O son of Kunti, a man works out his own welfare and then proceeds to the highest goal.

He who abandoning sacred writings and their ordinances, acts under the impulse of desire, does not attain perfection, nor happiness, nor the highest goal. Therefore in discriminating between what should be done and what should not be done, your authority must be sacred texts. And knowing what is declared by the ordinances of the sacred writings, you should perform action in this world.
Translated by Kashinath Trimbak Telano, 1882
Edited and annotated by Richard Hooker




[/ QUOTE ]

Bhagavad Gita

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
put it another way;

If people of lessor intelligence want to do relatively well then is creating an environment where the advantage of being more intelligent is reduced exactly what they want?

If so, do succesful literalist religons achieve this to some extent.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a very recursive phenomenom, and you seem to have captured it correctly. Naturally, very little of it is deliberate, thought out, it's just that another approach to the treatment of knowledge would do FC in, so the societal approach evolves.

luckyme

[Darryl_P]

I would have phrased it differently, but what you say makes a lot of sense (as usual).

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone quick post all the "I will make the wise foolish" passages, or however they go. I know the Bible is a big fan of dumb people, not so much of the Brights.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would depend on how you define 'bright'.

If you look at Christianity as a political entity, it has outlasted every other political entity since its inception. The kings, nations, rulers, and countries have all fallen, but it remains.

We can argue the logic, or lack thereof behind Christianity - but I'd be hard pressed to argue the results. Through its different embodiements, Christianity (its Kingdom) has become the most powerful force on earth.

Like I said, it all depends on how you define 'bright'.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The kings, nations, rulers, and countries have all fallen, but it remains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cockroaches?

luckyme

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The kings, nations, rulers, and countries have all fallen, but it remains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cockroaches?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

All in good time.
http://www.orkin.com/media/new/flashplaceholder_7_26_2006.jpg

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
put it another way;

If people of lessor intelligence want to do relatively well then is creating an environment where the advantage of being more intelligent is reduced exactly what they want?

If so, do succesful literalist religons achieve this to some extent.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

...and the meek shall inherit the earth. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And they're welcome to it. I want to sample the buffet elsewhere.

[cambraceres]

Elite scientists often have a high sense of order in their lives, and are typicslly not given to abstract faith. This said, imagine a scientist who can throw his cognitive faculty in the trash by accepting a theology so diametrically opposed to all he stands for as a supremely logical being.

Now if you are trying to say there have been many elite scientists of the past with a predilection for religious belief then you may be right, but these are typically in antiquity.

Liebniz is the last I can think of, the most recent I mean. And by the way, if you consider Liebniz' priciple of indiscernables with a few axioms obvious in his other writings, one can formulate the logical edifice of modern Quantum Theory. Now Liebniz himself, at the pivotal moment, when forced to chose how nature decides which reality to manifest, said that god simply chose "the best of all possible worlds", rather than come to the more reasonable model based on the stochastic nature of reality.

Cam

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
put it another way;

If people of lessor intelligence want to do relatively well then is creating an environment where the advantage of being more intelligent is reduced exactly what they want?

If so, do succesful literalist religons achieve this to some extent.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know that dumb people have had much impact on christian doctrine - there have clearly been many very intelligent apologists, particularly in the early days of the church. Or do you mean that smart people make the doctrine favor dumb people so that they will enthusiastically follow it and recruit aggressively?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
put it another way;

If people of lessor intelligence want to do relatively well then is creating an environment where the advantage of being more intelligent is reduced exactly what they want?

If so, do succesful literalist religons achieve this to some extent.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

...and the meek shall inherit the earth. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And they're welcome to it. I want to sample the buffet elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well...you can have anything you want... at Alice's Restaurant. As long as you don't mind having it cooked in a (non)empirical sauce.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
It would depend on how you define 'bright'.

If you look at Christianity as a political entity, it has outlasted every other political entity since its inception.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it's not a political entity. And if it were, you'd have to include Hinduism and Buddhism and Zoroastrianism...

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
Elite scientists often have a high sense of order in their lives, and are typicslly not given to abstract faith. This said, imagine a scientist who can throw his cognitive faculty in the trash by accepting a theology so diametrically opposed to all he stands for as a supremely logical being.

Now if you are trying to say there have been many elite scientists of the past with a predilection for religious belief then you may be right, but these are typically in antiquity.

Liebniz is the last I can think of, the most recent I mean. And by the way, if you consider Liebniz' priciple of indiscernables with a few axioms obvious in his other writings, one can formulate the logical edifice of modern Quantum Theory. Now Liebniz himself, at the pivotal moment, when forced to chose how nature decides which reality to manifest, said that god simply chose "the best of all possible worlds", rather than come to the more reasonable model based on the stochastic nature of reality.

Cam

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry people, wrong thread, but I'm sure YOU knew that already. So much for posting on that specific chemical.

Cam

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
put it another way;

If people of lessor intelligence want to do relatively well then is creating an environment where the advantage of being more intelligent is reduced exactly what they want?

If so, do succesful literalist religons achieve this to some extent.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

...and the meek shall inherit the earth. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And they're welcome to it. I want to sample the buffet elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well...you can have anything you want... at Alice's Restaurant. As long as you don't mind having it cooked in a (non)empirical sauce.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as Bob doesn't insist on empricial accuracy from Alice...

I'm willing to entertain the idea that those buffets are possible, in theory. Of course, the only way I can be sure I'll find out in practice is to accept that my own death is not the end of my existence.

And that's a very difficult thing to have to accept. I've never really come to the conclusion that the transition is possible, yet. Perhaps the transition is illusory, as I can't fathom of another method that would work successfully for every individual.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
put it another way;

If people of lessor intelligence want to do relatively well then is creating an environment where the advantage of being more intelligent is reduced exactly what they want?

If so, do succesful literalist religons achieve this to some extent.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know that dumb people have had much impact on christian doctrine - there have clearly been many very intelligent apologists, particularly in the early days of the church. Or do you mean that smart people make the doctrine favor dumb people so that they will enthusiastically follow it and recruit aggressively?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not suggesting anything like that. Literalists don't innovate much and I'm not arguing for a conpiracy. Suppose life was an enforced statagy game:

Those of us who can make a healthy profit of those worse than us will be happy with a game that reflects skill. The DS's of this would live like kings but what of the least intelligent? The intelligence factor is a disastor for them and their best stratagy is to manipulate the rules of the games to reduce the skill advantage.

If we were low down the intelligence scale we might embrace any holy text that said 'thou shall play noughts and crosses'.

chez