Page 52 of 89 FirstFirst ... 242474849505152535455565762 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,040 of 1780
  1. #1021  
    Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences and values that are novel in human evolution


    More intelligent people are significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

    The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."

    "Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."

    "General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."

    An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals. Because our ancestors lacked artificial light, they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after dusk. Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.

    In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

    Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

    Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

    Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

    In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary history. Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were. In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women. And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.

    One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.
  2.    #1022  
    @donovan34
    I did a little bit of reading and listening in order so that I could provide some answers to your questions about some of the Mosaic precepts in Exodus and Deuteronomy that you raised questions about.

    In the past I began listening to this "Our Father's Plan" Bible Study series in the past but I had only gotten as far as Exodus (4th episode) in that series. Tonight I re-listened to the 4th episode and listened to the 5th episode for the first time. They pretty much cover Exodus through Deuteronomy.

    I also did a bit of study around your "witchcraft" question related to Exodus 22:18 ("You shall not permit a sorceress to live.").

    Let me first state that the laws given from God to Moses on Mt. Sinai (aside from the 10 commandments) were meant to be "remedial" in order to bring Israel back to God. These people needed to be broken of their disordered affinity to Egyptian Gods hence the commandments about false gods and idols. In Deuteronomy, the tribes collectively did not trust God's promise that they would be able to conquer the land of Cannan. Because of continued disobedience, Moses (as God's representative) gave them even more laws in Deuteronomy. Some of those laws were concessions from "ideal laws" and others seem to have been made strict disciplines to be followed until the coming of the Messiah. The laws seem barbaric compared with today's standards but I don't think they were for that time period. I believe you need to take this into consideration when transferring what they meant "then" to today.

    Also keep in mind that up until now in the Bible, we're also given some understanding of what God desires from us. Clearly the stories so far teach that he wants our total commitment and dedication. This is best demonstrated in the story of Apraham and the test by God to see if he would be willing to sacrafice his only son. God does not allow him to carry through with this but rewards this trust with the biggest promise made so far in the Bible:

    Genesis 12:2
    And I will make of you
    • a great nation,
    • and I will bless you, and make your name great,
    • so that you will be a blessing.
    God accomplishes this promise by sacrificing his "only son" (Jesus) in order to create a way for all man to be able to be brought to God. The Old Testament precepts have been abolished with this newer and greater covenant established by Christ. It's not only a "great story", but it's a practical one with deeper symbolism than any other writings in history. The more I understand it, the more I see it as a genuine "work of God". You may not see this immediately, but there are much better tools today to understand the Bible than there ever were before. Once you understand it, then you'll be able to see if it has value or not.

    I also looked briefly at some of what Thomas Aquinas wrote (in his "Summa Theologica") regarding the "charity" that we should apply to non-believers. I think you will find his writings very reasoned and very beautiful. There are lots of writings like this that I'd like to better understand once I better understand the Bible!
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1023  
    Quote Originally Posted by donovan34 View Post
    Also, have you ever looked up a the Egyptian god Horus who was worshiped an estimated 2000 years before Jesus? Many similarities to your Jesus:
    I posted this before but, as the Jesus-Horus meme continues, I'll post it again:

    Most of these claims came from Gerald Massey by way of Tom Harpur whose work has been thoroughly discredited by modern Egyptologists. Let's take a look at some of this:

    1. Both were conceived of a virgin.
    Actually, Horus was born of Isis and her brother/husband Osiris by way of a prosthetic member.

    2. Both were the "only begotten son" of a god (either Osiris or Yahweh)
    Depending on the version, Osiris also sired Anubis.

    3. Horus's mother was Meri, Jesus's mother was Mary.
    Horus' mother was Isis.

    4. Horus's foster father was called Jo-Seph, and Jesus's foster father was Joseph.
    Horus' father/uncle was Osiris whose brother was Set (again, depending on the version of the myth). Some accounts have Anubis as the son of Set and others the son of Osiris and still other later accounts have Set and Horus being the same. Also, Osiris father was Seb or Geb but not Horus'. So, the link seems to be very tenuous verging on silly when you consider that Joseph was one of the most common male names in First Century Judea.

    5. Both foster fathers were of royal descent.
    True enough, but what deity isn't?

    6. Both were born in a cave (although sometimes Jesus is said to have been born in a stable).
    Horus was born in the Nile Delta. He is also born with divine powers and flew up to the sky upon his birth. Jesus was born in the normal manner with no airborne departure.

    Well, it goes on from there.
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1024  
    Quote Originally Posted by donovan34 View Post
    Cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15, 21:17, Leviticus 20:9, and in the New Testament Mark 7:10) If my parents are wrong I am going to let them know it. Again, please don't try to kill me for that as this too, is archaic.
    Is that what the passage in Mark is really saying?
  5. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1025  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    The point was not whether or not Horus was real, but that the "Legend of Horus" provably predates Jesus, or even the old testament of the bible, and yet it seems that nearly all of the information we have about Jesus was copied directly from the story of Horus.

    What's most likely? There are only three possibilities:

    1. That the Jews who knew these stories from their Egyptian masters passed them down and they were eventually copied over to describe Jesus when they formed Christianity, abandoning the facts about him (if Jesus was real) or fabricating Jesus entirely from the old legend.

    2. That God was such a fan of the Horus story, and just to confuse us a couple thousand years later, he arranged things so they would be so similar.

    3. Neither is true and it's a huge cosmic coincidence.
    There's a forth possibility: the "scholar" who thought up those comparisons has been completely discredited. In other words, there are no such striking similarities.
  6.    #1026  
    I'm beginning to be disappointed by these "Jesus-Horus" attacks. My initial research on this topic isn't showing the "connection" I was hoping for. It seems to me many groups use these sort of attacks to discredit "other" religions. Apparently this idea began when this dude wrote a book in the mid 1800's. Anyone who claims Constantine slipped his pagan beliefs into Christianity is simply nuts, evil, ignorant, or all of the above. Others seem to quote this "house of cards" as if it were a solid reference. I would encourage anyone "studying" this concept to not trust any references without double checking their validity. Here is an article suggesting some validation procedures for this task. Please also remember to separate fact from fiction (for example, Dan Brown's "The Davinci Code" is fiction).
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  7. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1027  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I'm beginning to be disappointed by these "Jesus-Horus" attacks. My initial research on this topic isn't showing the "connection" I was hoping for. It seems to me many groups use these sort of attacks to discredit "other" religions. Apparently this idea began when this dude wrote a book in the mid 1800's. Anyone who claims Constantine slipped his pagan beliefs into Christianity is simply nuts, evil, ignorant, or all of the above. Others seem to quote this "house of cards" as if it were a solid reference. I would encourage anyone "studying" this concept to not trust any references without double checking their validity. Here is an article suggesting some validation procedures for this task. Please also remember to separate fact from fiction (for example, Dan Brown's "The Davinci Code" is fiction).
    Yes, there was some discussion about whether Massey borrowed from Hislop or they both borrowed from someone else. Egyptology and other esoteric studies were all the rage in the mid to late-19th Century and Massey was just a layman in the field. So I tend to give the upper hand to Hislop even though Massey's work has proved more influential.
    Last edited by groovy; 02/28/2010 at 05:44 PM.
  8. #1028  
    Please forgive me for offering my two cents without first reading all 52 pages of this thread.

    I'm agnostic. I neither believe, nor disbelieve. The universe, as we percieve it, is perfectly plausible to have been created by an all-powerful god as it is to have been created by unimaginable lengths of time.

    For those that have faith: power to you, but understand that I, without your faith, am not lacking. Athiests have just as much faith as any world religion believer, perhaps even more so. The athiest takes absence of evidence to mean evidence of absence. The world religion believer at least has a book.
    Last edited by Colonel Kernel; 03/01/2010 at 03:08 AM.
  9.    #1029  
    Welcome Colonel Kernel. What you said is important for everyone to remember (and something I wasn't fully remembering myself).
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1030  
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Kernel View Post
    For those that have faith: power to you, but understand that I, without your faith, am not lacking.
    If I can comment on your $0.02, I would just add that if you believe you are not lacking then you are exercising faith. The reality is that you may be lacking, just as I may be lacking, but without complete and perfect knowledge of the truth we both must operate under faith based on what we think we know.
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1031  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I posted this before but, as the Jesus-Horus meme continues, I'll post it again:
    So you're saying that their version doesn't align with any other version of Horus?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. #1032  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    If I can comment on your $0.02, I would just add that if you believe you are not lacking then you are exercising faith. The reality is that you may be lacking, just as I may be lacking, but without complete and perfect knowledge of the truth we both must operate under faith based on what we think we know.
    My 2 cents: There is a third option beyond "complete and perfect knowledge" and "faith", and that is objective reasoning. There are supportive facts on either side of the argument, for me, rationality tells me religion is man-made, and in that respect I am exercising neither faith nor absolute truth.
  13. #1033  
    Just call me Berd.
  14. #1034  
    Quote Originally Posted by gsonspre View Post
    I think its like Adican(?) skywalker!
    Im Soooo powerful look what I can do! What a jerk!

    Ok so words of the bible explained evil in humans...
    What about the bad doings of nature? Tsunami's, earthquakes, volcano's, floods, hurricanes... etc, etc....?
    I feel it's Mother Natures population control? (would God ever do a population control for the sole sake of overpopulation? not like the "great flood" to rid of evil.)

    Couldnt God kill Satan? Did Satan create hell or did God? Is the lack of killing evil a test for us if we can overcome the perversions of evil?
    If you are the Ultimate Evil person like H i t l e r is it possible that you would be embraced by Satan and live happily in Hell?
    Is it a sin if we try to take on God's work and kill evil?
    If we do and get the message wrong do we go to hell for the miunderstanding?
    Who was told the story of Adam and Eve to write down? (Bc Adam and Eve existed before there was language!?)

    I think these are my "Evil" questions....

    I have non evil questions too! They can be addressed later for the sake of keeping on topic...
    Could a living being in their after life become and angel?
    Could Micael still go to heaven for not believing in religion but believing in God even if he doesnt embrace Jesus as "The Son of God"?
    If one lives there life as an atheist but still follows the laws of the 10 commandments would God still allow him in to heaven?
    If an agnostic searches his entire life in good faith, but has failed to be convinced one way or another does he go to hell?
    Same question for anyone in any other religion?
    Would God immediately send them to hell or would he make a decision based on that person?
    Where do ghosts stand to religion? Is there mention of them in the bible and do religious people believe in them and how are they portrayed?
    Sorry for the thousand questions! But some questioons that can keep the thread going strong!
    Sorry I missed this post.

    I'll try and include some of your questions in what I'm putting together for dbd.

    What I don't answer in my reply to dbd's Noah question, I'll try and include in a separate reply to you.
    Just call me Berd.
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1035  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    So you're saying that their version doesn't align with any other version of Horus?
    No, they do not and, in fact, could not. At the time of writing Massey's work, most of the ancient hieroglyphs had yet to be translated.
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1036  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    My 2 cents: There is a third option beyond "complete and perfect knowledge" and "faith", and that is objective reasoning. There are supportive facts on either side of the argument, for me, rationality tells me religion is man-made, and in that respect I am exercising neither faith nor absolute truth.
    But aren't you exercising faith in your rationality? Why would that rational mind, which has evolved on the basis of advantageous behavior and not correct belief, be in any sense reliable on subjects that are not only unrelated to survival but, in some cases, counterproductive to survival? In fact, consider the words of this man:

    But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?

    – Charles Darwin, to William Graham 3 July 1881
    Last edited by groovy; 03/01/2010 at 01:28 AM.
  17. #1037  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    If I can comment on your $0.02, I would just add that if you believe you are not lacking then you are exercising faith. The reality is that you may be lacking, just as I may be lacking, but without complete and perfect knowledge of the truth we both must operate under faith based on what we think we know.
    Not quite. In the sense that you mean, I am certain that I AM lacking. The truth, what ever it may be, exists, but I do not ascribe to said truth to any degree. The believer, be they athiest or Christian, by believing what they do, has the possibility of being at least partially right. I have made no such assertion to be either correct or incorrect about.

    In the sense that you mean, you are referring to athiests, which I am not. It is the athiest that believes their beliefs are not lacking. If there is a god, of what ever flavor, then they were lacking all along.

    I was referring to socially. I am as socially valid as you or any one else. Even if someone's beliefs are closer to The Truth, they are not better than me. I am not lacking.
    Last edited by Colonel Kernel; 03/01/2010 at 05:39 PM.
  18. #1038  
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Kernel View Post
    The world religion believer at least has a book.
    Yes, a book...
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  19. #1039  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    But aren't you exercising faith in your rationality? Why would that rational mind, which has evolved on the basis of advantageous behavior and not correct belief, be in any sense reliable on subjects that are not only unrelated to survival but, in some cases, counterproductive to survival? In fact, consider the words of this man:
    Actually I am not. My rational mind (at least I strive to be rational) makes decisions based on observable knowledge and plausible logic over time -- neither of these habits involve absolute truth or faith. 2 + 2 = 4, that is truth. Believing the fantastic tales in the bible, that is faith. The rational laws of nature, employed objectively, operate with or without faith and sometimes point to absolute truth, with or without a rational mind in observance.

    Love the Darwin quote, I'll have to write that down.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1040  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Actually I am not. My rational mind (at least I strive to be rational) makes decisions based on observable knowledge and plausible logic over time -- neither of these habits involve absolute truth or faith. 2 + 2 = 4, that is truth. Believing the fantastic tales in the bible, that is faith. The rational laws of nature, employed objectively, operate with or without faith and sometimes point to absolute truth, with or without a rational mind in observance.
    While belief of what is stated in the Bible certainly requires faith, I'd suggest that most people believe many things on faith.

    You said that you make decisions on observable knowledge, and of that I have no doubt, but how many things do you (and anyone) accept without any direct observation of any kind? Even when it is available, I highly doubt that people actually take time to investigate and verify most things they believe. That's where the "plausible" part comes in.

    Is it plausible to believe that Christopher Columbus lived and did the things he was said to do? Sure, pretty much, but we really don't have a good way of verifying any account of the man's life or what he actually did. We basically accept it. If you believe in Evolution for example, unless you are a biologist you probably don't understand the details, even if you do understand the basic premise, and as such, it seems that one must accept that others are correct in their findings--and as such this isn't based on observation, its based on faith in someone else's observations. Even if they wrote it all out for you to inspect, you are trusting that the data is correct.

    It seems that, no historical event, prior to some reviewable recording can be confirmed as having happened, because there is no possibility to verify any of it. Even if there are 100 accounts that agree, we are required to trust that those are both accurate and real. Yet, we accept thousands if not millions of things happened in the past.

    Essentially, it is highly unlikely that any person has either the opportunity or the capacity to observe and verify the millions of things we accept as "Truth." My point--we all believe things on faith.

    The question isn't whether someone claims if something CAN be verified as truth, but whether one even bothers to try. I claim that more often than not, we simply don't bother. Why? Because we have faith that it IS plausible, and IS factual. Even if we believe something CAN be scientifically proven, if we don't actually do that ourselves, then the actual difference between believing that and believing something that doesn't appear to be provable is negligible.

    KAM

Posting Permissions