I don't really actually see the belief in god(s)/designer(s)/higher powers, whatever, as really an issue with intelligence or the intellectual feats of a person. While there may be some correlation here and there I think, in my opinion, it is more a matter of basic human psychology - loci of control, societal supporting/bonding, habituation, conditioning, cognitive dissonance, psychological reactance and so forth which play into the vague and often variable spiritual/religious schemata.
For instance, reactance can be seen when someone enters a debate on theism/atheism or creation/evolution and they end up (no matter how the debate went) claiming to have a firmer stand in their convictions or the often used, "it has made my faith/disbelief stronger". It is not a matter of "sides" or opposing beliefs or the like, it is a matter of human behavior. I'm not saying this is always the case but more often than not it is the rule rather than the exception. Cognitive dissonance can be see on either side of the coin - some have gone so far as to say theistic evolution is a product of the dissonance process - although I would see it as a bit more complicated than simply just that but would not disagree that it may play a role.
Dr. So and So is an eminent professor and distinguished theoretical/particle super physicist and a devout Christian - okay, good for him. Does his status in this context mean he is correct in the religion department? Not necessarily. Does it really prove anything? Not really.
Dr. So-So and So is an eminent professor and distinguished neurosurgeon and neurobiology researcher and is a devout atheist -okay, good for him. Does his status in this context mean he is correct in the religion department? Not necessarily. Does it really prove anything? Not really.
Solidsquid is a graduate student and part-time beer drinker and an agnostic atheist - okay, good for me....well, you get the idea.
Each side can claim, well this smart person was/is a Christian/Believes in God or whatever or this smart person is an atheist/agnostic or whatever. What this seems like is attempting to substantiate one side over another by appeal fallacy proxy. But I think it is an argumentative tool that results in a dead end and we get caught going in circles of "my group has more/better/cooler/smarter people than your group so we're most likely right".
But again, this is my opinion and I could just as easily be wrong in my own conclusions of fallacious in my own reasoning (everyone is biased in one way or another - even you too objectivists). This is not to say that debate/discussion is useless, it isn't because even if no conclusion is reached ever, the time spent on these various ideas is what makes us more well rounded and knowledgeable. It is not the reaching of the destination but the journey itself that is important.
Or I could just be full of crap...
For instance, reactance can be seen when someone enters a debate on theism/atheism or creation/evolution and they end up (no matter how the debate went) claiming to have a firmer stand in their convictions or the often used, "it has made my faith/disbelief stronger". It is not a matter of "sides" or opposing beliefs or the like, it is a matter of human behavior. I'm not saying this is always the case but more often than not it is the rule rather than the exception. Cognitive dissonance can be see on either side of the coin - some have gone so far as to say theistic evolution is a product of the dissonance process - although I would see it as a bit more complicated than simply just that but would not disagree that it may play a role.
Dr. So and So is an eminent professor and distinguished theoretical/particle super physicist and a devout Christian - okay, good for him. Does his status in this context mean he is correct in the religion department? Not necessarily. Does it really prove anything? Not really.
Dr. So-So and So is an eminent professor and distinguished neurosurgeon and neurobiology researcher and is a devout atheist -okay, good for him. Does his status in this context mean he is correct in the religion department? Not necessarily. Does it really prove anything? Not really.
Solidsquid is a graduate student and part-time beer drinker and an agnostic atheist - okay, good for me....well, you get the idea.
Each side can claim, well this smart person was/is a Christian/Believes in God or whatever or this smart person is an atheist/agnostic or whatever. What this seems like is attempting to substantiate one side over another by appeal fallacy proxy. But I think it is an argumentative tool that results in a dead end and we get caught going in circles of "my group has more/better/cooler/smarter people than your group so we're most likely right".
But again, this is my opinion and I could just as easily be wrong in my own conclusions of fallacious in my own reasoning (everyone is biased in one way or another - even you too objectivists). This is not to say that debate/discussion is useless, it isn't because even if no conclusion is reached ever, the time spent on these various ideas is what makes us more well rounded and knowledgeable. It is not the reaching of the destination but the journey itself that is important.
Or I could just be full of crap...
