The limiting tendancies of intelligence

[Bro Dave]

As with any tool, intelligence must be carefully applied. Most often, we use our intelligence to define what is "reasonable" and "possible". From those conclusions, we create permanent "walls" that are not to be questioned. That's not all bad. It gives a sense of security, because now we proportedly "know" this or that. Even better, if we label the "wall" we've errected; That gives it a legitimacy making it more easilier to defend.

Aggravating this, most intellectual people, are linguistically gifted, so are able to overwhelm the “uninformed” with torrents of words that draw their power from the "walls" and the brotherhood of other intellectuals.

But, from the ranks of the “uninformed”, as from the mouths of babes, come many new ideas, some that have ultimately shattered those wall so carefully crafted by those who “know”.

What I’m trying to get across, is that there is a danger in being a member of the intellectual club. They tend to cluster together and reinforce each others conclusions, based on the previously constructed “walls”. I consider most atheists members of such a group. In this case, the group gathers to proudly to declare conclusions about something they have not experienced. This seems the kind of area where one should not be constructing walls! Celebrating what you do not know, seem, well illogical!

So, what about it, is intellect the real “bottom line”? Well, it depends on how you evaluate it. If you judge it on the basis of personal wealth, they fair somewhat better, but what about social skills? Often I have seen elevated intellect, that could hardly be taken into polite society. That’s not to say all smart folks are rude or incorrigible, the many great intellectual folks here proove that is not the case. But there is a notworthy percentage who reflect that element. And what about satisfying lives? Talent, with or without raw intellect, seems somehow to sow the seeds of dissatisfaction. There often times seems an accompanying emptiness associated with these achievers. There seems to be an inordinate instability in their marriages as well. Often this is driven by an inability of intimacy.

What I’m getting at is this; Life is more that just intelligence. While it certainly has a major part to play, overplaying it can lead to as much dissatisfaction, and unhappiness as stupidity, maybe even more! After all, the stupid probably really don’t realize their circumstances.

Is it possible to set up a sort equation of balance for happiness? The Eastern philosophies seem to suggest such an equation exists. Head and heart, both come into play. If you focus exclusively on either, unhappiness follows. But that may need to be a separate thread…

Bro Dave

[harvey1]

What I’m trying to get across, is that there is a danger in being a member of the intellectual club. They tend to cluster together and reinforce each others conclusions, based on the previously constructed “walls”. I consider most atheists members of such a group.

I don't think there's anything wrong with pursuing intellectual pursuits with as much capability as God has given them. I certainly wouldn't recommend that someone try not to use their talents. I do agree with you though that something can go awry with intellectual efforts--especially when the natural mind rejects the creator and is given over to its own whims. Let's face it, the natural mind does not like the concept of God. It just runs against everything that the natural mind enjoys and values.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen some people enjoy a belief of what they consider to be in full rejection of God, only to turn on that belief on a dime if they find out that it might actually require God. Faster than you can say carnal mind they are on their way at rejecting the belief that they once found liberating. Why? Why? Why? I don't know. Any ideas? What exactly happens to the natural mind that they would reject a God that made the universe, and is the only hope they and their loved ones have for meaning in this world? I just don't get it.

[Bro Dave]

What I’m trying to get across is that there is a danger in being a member of the intellectual club. They tend to cluster together and reinforce each others conclusions, based on the previously constructed “walls”. I consider most atheists members of such a group.

I don't think there's anything wrong with pursuing intellectual pursuits with as much capability as God has given them. I certainly wouldn't recommend that someone try not to use their talents. I do agree with you though that something can go awry with intellectual efforts--especially when the natural mind rejects the creator and is given over to its own whims. Let's face it, the natural mind does not like the concept of God. It just runs against everything that the natural mind enjoys and values.

Our natural starting point is animalistic. We are therefore, by instinct, evil. However, God does live within each of us, and constantly nudges us towards discovering and recognizing Him there within; “Closer than your breath”.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen some people enjoy a belief of what they consider to be in full rejection of God, only to turn on that belief on a dime if they find out that it might actually require God. Faster than you can say carnal mind they are on their way at rejecting the belief that they once found liberating. Why? Why? Why? I don't know. Any ideas?

People who bother to think, soon discover that however religions package God, it is a terrible misrepresentation. While they assigning attributes to Him like omnipotence and omniscience, those seem ridiculous when accompanied by human traits like hatred, and anger! That, I believe, is the “god” they reject. As the sun constantly shines on the Earth, God shines on His creation. Do the clouds remove God? Of course not, and while life sometimes seems to obscure Him in our lives, when the moment is right, He shines through, removing any shadow of doubt.

What exactly happens to the natural mind that they would reject a God that made the universe, and is the only hope they and their loved ones have for meaning in this world? I just don't get it.

I don’t think they are actually rejecting God. They are rejecting this human icon that is supposed to represent our INFINITE Creator. And, while they are unable better to define anything infinite, they are honest enough to say it is beyond their ability to understand, and therefore beyond their ability to believe. The good news is, God never gives up on us. He has eternity stretched out before us, and unless and until we get completely informed as to God’s true character, and our choice to accept or reject our natural sonship, He will continue to love us and lead us. That is the God I love and respect.

Bro Dave

[OccamsRazor]

I am dumbfounded at some of the logic presented here. The postulation as that the existence of God is self-evident, it is therefore on this basis that atheists build intellectual walls based on irrationality and sit in groups praising one another for that.

Do you not think that your axiomatic existence of a deity is an intellectual wall that you built yourself. Don't get me wrong, I cannot say that anyone escapes potentially immobilising intellectual walls, I am just saying that it I find it highly unreasonable to point the finger at atheism.
I would suggest that theism, by its very nature is an immoveable intellectual wall as it relies on faith and can therefore not be rationalised.

What I’m getting at is this; Life is more that just intelligence.

Hmmm....I'm not sure what you mean by this. I feel that intelligence, like life, is an emergent property of electro-chemical processes.

What exactly happens to the natural mind that they would reject a God that made the universe, and is the only hope they and their loved ones have for meaning in this world? I just don't get it.

I don’t think they are actually rejecting God. They are rejecting this human icon that is supposed to represent our INFINITE Creator.

I also do not understand this. Harvey, could you give me an example of the immediate reversal of belief you suggest? Bro Dave could you tell me what the human icon is?
Personally I feel that you both have a problem with atheism and that maybe this is one of your intellectual "walls". I do not wholly understand the idea of rejecting a creator. I don't reject it on a metaphysical level I reject it on a conceptual one; nor do I understand the idea that this providing loved ones with a meaning should influence my belief. I cannot adjust my view of reality purely for someone elses benefit, this would be hypocritical.

[Bro Dave]

I am dumbfounded at some of the logic presented here. The postulation as that the existence of God is self-evident, it is therefore on this basis that atheists build intellectual walls based on irrationality and sit in groups praising one another for that.

Sorry, God is self-evident to me, and many others. Sort of the way no one realized that air was “something” for thousands of years. It was so pervasive as to be missed, until you actually look. But certainly seems that atheists link arms, and loudly stand for a disbelief. It just seems to be a strange negative rallying point.

Do you not think that your axiomatic existence of a deity is an intellectual wall that you built yourself. Don't get me wrong, I cannot say that anyone escapes potentially immobilising intellectual walls, I am just saying that it I find it highly unreasonable to point the finger at atheism.

I build my wall of paper. As was revealed to me, “Truth is not facts, it is a state of realization”. Meaning that as my understanding grows, so will what is apparently true to me, seem to grow.

I would suggest that theism, by its very nature is an immoveable intellectual wall as it relies on faith and can therefore not be rationalised.

Yes, spiritual revelations tends always to get cast into concrete, and cease to provide any spirituality. It’s the “Achilles heel” of religions.

What I’m getting at is this; Life is more that just intelligence.

Hmmm....I'm not sure what you mean by this. I feel that intelligence, like life, is an emergent property of electro-chemical processes.

There is substance consisting of meaning and values in life. We live and love, and experience and grow in knowledge and wisdom. That goes beyond pure intellectuality, which is sterile and with no need for those higher values.

What exactly happens to the natural mind that they would reject a God that made the universe, and is the only hope they and their loved ones have for meaning in this world? I just don't get it.

I don’t think they are actually rejecting God. They are rejecting this human icon that is supposed to represent our INFINITE Creator.

I also do not understand this. Harvey, could you give me an example of the immediate reversal of belief you suggest? Bro Dave could you tell me what the human icon is?

I was referring to our tendency to anthropomorphize God, protraying Him as a human image,(icon) we can understand.

Personally I feel that you both have a problem with atheism and that maybe this is one of your intellectual "walls". I do not wholly understand the idea of rejecting a creator.

I really don’t have a “problem” with Atheists per se. I find them to be honest and intellignet. I came very close to becoming one, so I actually relate to your views. My difficulty is that my view encompasses those view, as well as religious views. For me, Atheists seem to insist on hard lines consisting of the physical/material realm, and excluding all that is not “measurable”. Its like studying the egg shell, and ignoring the life inside of it, because you can’t see it.(bad analogy, I know but you get the idea)

I don't reject it on a metaphysical level I reject it on a conceptual one; nor do I understand the idea that this providing loved ones with a meaning should influence my belief. I cannot adjust my view of reality purely for someone elses benefit, this would be hypocritical.

Conceptually, you do not have answers sufficient to explain the existence of the Universe. Seeing it all only through a very narrow time perspective restricted by your physical limitations, it seem ludicrous to dismiss that there was and is intelligence behind its unfoldment.

Bro Dave

[OccamsRazor]

Sorry, God is self-evident to me, and many others....I build my wall of paper.

This initially appears to me to be a wall built of reinforced steel. To say that God's existence can be known a priori surely means that you are unwilling to contest this proposition.

I have always had a problem with people suggesting that they have no intellectual barriers or that their intellectual barriers are, as you say, "made of paper". Everyone has intellectual walls and being willing to view them and accept possible limitations in your logic due to your own psychological issues is the first step to circumventing these barriers. Stating that your barriers are immaterial is tantamount to stating that all of your own logic is flawless.

Yes, spiritual revelations tends always to get cast into concrete, and cease to provide any spirituality. It’s the “Achilles heel” of religions.

This still makes little sense to me. I'm sorry to say that I don't really see what a "spiritual revelation" is.

There is substance consisting of meaning and values in life. We live and love, and experience and grow in knowledge and wisdom. That goes beyond pure intellectuality, which is sterile and with no need for those higher values.

Again, we must part views in this case. I have never understood the question of bringing a higher meaning to life. I am purely ignostic concerning the "meaning of life", I can ask "how are we here?" but asking "why are we here?" seems nonsensical (Similar to the ignostic question "What colour is Saturday?").

I was referring to our tendency to anthropomorphize God, protraying Him as a human image,(icon) we can understand.

Ok. I see what you mean. I don't think that atheists simply reject this icon, I think that atheists reject the concept of a higher being or higher consciousness.

For me, Atheists seem to insist on hard lines consisting of the physical/material realm, and excluding all that is not “measurable”.

Ok but I see no issue with this. Implying that one must accept ideas that are not empirically proveable suggests that I should accept almost any mythology. Why would you reject belief in the the Egyptian Gods or the Gods of Mount Olympus? There should be nothing pointing us to acceptance of a pantheistic consciousness more than any other idea.

Conceptually, you do not have answers sufficient to explain the existence of the Universe. Seeing it all only through a very narrow time perspective restricted by your physical limitations, it seem ludicrous to dismiss that there was and is intelligence behind its unfoldment.

I do not offhandedly dismiss the idea. I simply feel that I should not attribute anything that I have yet to explain to a creator. This seems like intellectual capitulation to me. I don't want to get into discussions about ID or how the initial comsic bubble came to exist (I think that these are discussions for other threads) but I think the teleological argument is simply levering a pre-concieved concept of a deity into known gaps or percieved gaps in our scientific knowledge.

[melikio]

Wow.

I spent a lot of time discussing these types of things with atheists, Christians and anyone else who will.

And one thing I've noticed is how often people neglect or refuse to stop and smell the roses.

I think what keep the intellectual and other walls from being absolutely "impervious", is LOVE.

I am a practicing musician (not professional however). And since I've been involved with music, I have noticed there are many types of people who play. Two types stand out readily:

1. The logical player.
2. The improvisor.

What is important is to see the HUMANESS in each type of player; for they are an analogy of the extremes which we often see people.

Player one, is the guy who knows how to play his instrument, practices diligently and can sight-read music like most can read a good book. But this person can also be highly-rigid and mechanical in his approach to music. Harmonies MUST fit where he was taught that they do; rhythmic patterns are to be executed with mathematical precision; silence is counted out, not also FELT. This person is rarely "wrong", but has placed "limits" upon the "expressions" he is capable of. You can hear this in his playing, it seems to "fit" but you sense that it is not ideal.

Player two, is the guy who may play well overall, but is hard to get his attention at band practice, and only practices when he feels like it. He doesn't care so much about the mechanical division of the notes, or the harmonic structures going on around him. Still, when this person plays, it also fits; this is the person who when a solo is given, it may not be "perfect", but it WILL be FELT deeply inside of you or anyone who is really listening.

I was in the middle of those two extremes, sometimes visiting at the ends.

People learn and experience things in different ways; they act differently. This is obvious, but what is inside of the obvious is typically profound. People overlook things; and our focus can become so narrow or precise, that we truly aren not relating to reality as efficiently as we actually could.

Is it possible to set up a sort equation of balance for happiness? The Eastern philosophies seem to suggest such an equation exists. Head and heart, both come into play. If you focus exclusively on either, unhappiness follows.

Dave, I believe it IS what most people are seeking but in unique ways. And as much as I sometimes hate to admit it myself, we human beings DO NEED one another. We need something to stir the pot and take us away from our stale perceptions of this reality. Love is a catalyst for just that.

I think much of this is about balance; I have little doubt of that. It's not merely about knowledge, logic, emotion (pos/neg); it is also about the mixture of all those things as they are packaged inside of human beings. That is, we cannot simply apply some formula to a person and expect them to turn out as we "calculated" or "imagined"; we must expect that there are limits to what we can know about people (much less ALL of what exists). I think/believe our collective knowledge and experiences apply to reality, in ways we don't have much understanding of. And as a believer, I sense that is what God's mind catches with little effort.

-Mel-

[QED]

I don't get where this either/or mentality comes form. Richard Feynman pointed out that the scientific appraisal of a rose could augment a poetic and artistic appreciation allowing one to gain an even greater appreciation of its qualities. Careful analysis is not mutually exclusive with an appreciation of beauty. I am always suspicious of people who would make it seem otherwise

[melikio]

Careful analysis is not mutually exclusive with an appreciation of beauty. I am always suspicious of people who would make it seem otherwise

Many times, to relax and soak things in intuitively, can help careful analysis, in ways which were certainly not calculated; a bit like going out into the field and observing what actually is (instead of believing we have "defined" what it is we shall see).

Human beings aren't machines, but we sometimes make the mistake of treating them that way.

-Mel-

[OccamsRazor]

Human beings aren't machines

I'm not sure about this. I personally believe that human beings are machines, albeit very complex ones.

The fact that something is a machine does not mean that you cannot view it in an aesthetic manner. You could take an Italian sportscar, it may be a machine but it may also be aesthetically beautiful.

My main issue is with the OP which gives the implication that you can make such aesthetic judgements concerning the nature of reality. You may look upon objects in nature and see that they are beautiful, I cannot justify that this may influence my belief in how it was created.