Right/wrong are human concepts not universal. The right or wrongness of a situation is determined by the creatures involved.IQ is equal to logic, the more logically one can examine a situation the higher the IQ of that creature.

Thats a separate discussion:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil

Right/wrong are human concepts not universal. The right or wrongness of a situation is determined by the creatures involved.IQ is equal to logic, the more logically one can examine a situation the higher the IQ of that creature. — Nathaniel

Not true, IQ tests measure more than logic. Knowledge, for starters. Congnition, comprehension, pattern recognition...and ya, logic.

Intelligence is the capacity of the Mind to work through complex situations and come up with an appropriate response, yes. Good job. You are right.

Try this if you’re really interested in the subject:

https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/intelligence-deary.pdf

I think Intelligence is made up of following two factors:

- Correctness. How right/wrong you get it
- IQ. How complex a concept you can handle

- So it’s possible for a genius to be wrong in a very complex way.
- Or a retard may get it right and not know why.

I think right/wrong are partially hormonal; adrenaline is released for threat = wrong situations. Dopamine is released as a reward = right situations. People who get it wrong habitually are reacting to adrenaline rather than dopamine.

The ability to make and follow through on the right decision relates to willpower which is not related to IQ.

An example of someone who’s intelligent but gets it wrong would be Richard Dawkins; he’s mainly motivated by sadism so reaches the wrong conclusions, but does so in a complex way so as to confuse people. — Devans99

I disagree. I think intelligence is made up of two factors:

1) Conception of reality in the mind
2) Neural connections in the brain

The intelligence of religious people is impaired by belief in something they can't know; such that the contents of the mind effectively disable the brain. The brain works better dealing with truth. It experiences cognitive dissonance less, and is able to make more dense, straightforward and closer connections. In short, the brain that models reality the closest works best.

The intelligence of religious people is impaired by belief in something they can't know; such that the contents of the mind effectively disable the brain — karl stone

I'm not religious myself but it seems to me that Atheists are mentally impaired; there is no firm evidence either way for/against God but there is a simple choice between glass half full and glass half empty and Atheists choose empty; to the determent of themselves and those unfortunate enough to be around them. Atheism also seems to correlate with sadism; which is unhealthy mentally.

^I think (For now) the only factor that made up intelligence is IQ. Hmmm, you are free to teach me more though : D

The intelligence of religious people is impaired by belief in something they can't know; such that the contents of the mind effectively disable the brain. — karl stone

^Hmmm, not exactly, I think religious belief and intelligence has really weak correlation. Some of the people that we could deem smart, are religious people. Example : Blaise Pascal, Fyodor Dostoevsky

The brain works better dealing with truth — karl stone

^I agree with this, but you must understand that in religion, there are many concept that is real in it.

I think (For now) the only factor that made up intelligence is IQ. Hmmm, you are free to teach me more though — diesynyang

I think what I'm getting at is that moral intelligence is different from IQ. Murder is wrong for example but intelligent people still do it (to their great detriment). Similarly you get good people who generally do the right thing but have a low IQ.

The intelligence of religious people is impaired by belief in something they can't know; such that the contents of the mind effectively disable the brain. The brain works better dealing with truth. It experiences cognitive dissonance less, and is able to make more dense, straightforward and closer connections. In short, the brain that models reality the closest works best. — karl stone

And yet, these people whose intelligence is supposedly impaired have dominated human culture for at least thousands of years. This consistent record of successful adaptation suggests that, generally speaking, religious people are modeling human reality pretty darn well.

As example, Catholicism dominated Western culture to a degree unimaginable today for 1,000 years, and continues to have a billion members, while few people could accurately quote anything any scientist has said, if they could even name a scientist.

Another example, the current President. Although he lies with almost every sentence, and shows every appearance of being a moron, he is President and we are not. His success at reaching his goals suggests he is modeling reality pretty darn well, at least better than his many experienced and intelligent competitors.

Your theory...

In short, the brain that models reality the closest works best. — karl stone

... is generally sound.

But you aren't applying your own theory very well when you consistently ignore the human reality.

^Yes, I agree, not all Good, Altruistic people are smart, and not all Evil, Egoistic people are stupid. But I would argue we should put aside moral when we want to judge a person "Does he/she has High Intelligent or not?". Because I don't (too) agree with the concept of Moral Intelligence (I think the word should not be "Intelligence" it should be "Moral XXX" in which I don't know what XXX is because i'm not a native english speaker : D).

I'm not religious myself but it seems to me that Atheists are mentally impaired; there is no firm evidence either way for/against God but there is a simple choice between glass half full and glass half empty and Atheists choose empty; to the determent of themselves and those unfortunate enough to be around them. Atheism also seems to correlate with sadism; which is unhealthy mentally. — Devans99

How does atheism correlate with sadism? Are you saying we should let everyone believe whatever they like - and that contradicting someone is an act of cruelty? I could not disagree more. If Dawkins were forcing people to read his books, that would be cruel. And worse, if he threatened people with everything from social exclusion to everlasting torture if they didn't believe every word he said, that would be intolerable.

But I would argue we should put aside moral when we want to judge a person "Does he/she has High Intelligent or not?" — diesynyang

Well maybe we need the term 'effective intelligence':

IQ * Moral Correctness = Effective Intelligence

So for example:

Richard Dawkins: 180 IQ * 25% = 45 effective intelligence points
A normal person: 100 IQ * 75% = 75 effective intelligence points

How does atheism correlate with sadism? — karl stone

Both Atheists and Theists try to spread their beliefs. Both beliefs are wrong but Atheism makes people unhappy and some Atheists use this to inflict pain on people. Theism in contrast makes people happy.

^That's better..... that's mean you don't need to be smart to live good, the most important thing is you need to be a person with Good Moral Character : D, which I hope that is correct hahaha.

^I think (For now) the only factor that made up intelligence is IQ. Hmmm, you are free to teach me more though : D — diesynyang

IQ is not an individual quality. It's a statistical measure of intelligence relative to that of others. So, i really don't know what you're saying here.

^Hmmm, not exactly, I think religious belief and intelligence has really weak correlation. Some of the people that we could deem smart, are religious people. Example : Blaise Pascal, Fyodor Dostoevsky — diesynyang

Right, but that's a good brain - not a good mind. It really would help if you'd understood the point I was making before replying.

^I agree with this, but you must understand that in religion, there are many concept that is real in it. — diesynyang

Must I understand that? If I must - why didn't you list any?

IQ is not an individual quality. It's a statistical measure of intelligence relative to that of others. So, i really don't know what you're saying here. — karl stone

^Yes, that's why my point is "You can know a person has high intelligence or not, based on their IQ, and for now, only IQ". We are not disgreeing i think.

Right, but that's a good brain - not a good mind. — karl stone

^Wait... fair enough, you haven't really made your point clear. So, you are saying that religious people has a "Good Brain" or "Good Mind"? and can you define those term for me to understand : D

why didn't you list any? — karl stone

Some of it are :

- The View that we as human, have problem, and most of those problem comes from "Desire", "Desire" that implanted since birth. (psychology supported this) (and modern or ancient philosophy support it)

- The view that human, on the deepest core, is evil (Psychology term is "tend to do evil")

- The view that there are chaos in this world, and without "Order" we won't be happy. (Philosophy support it, or law theory)

- The View that, under the sun (or in the universe) none are eternal. (Philosophy supported it)

- The view that we won't be happy even if we are able to satisfy all of our impulse. Happiness doesn't come from us satisfying our "Desire"/"Impluse" (Is an ancient idea, but epicurus make it popular I think).

- The view that to strive, we must suffer (or not avoiding pain). (Nietzsche support it)

- ETC

And yet, these people whose intelligence is supposedly impaired have dominated human culture for at least thousands of years. This consistent record of successful adaptation suggests that, generally speaking, religious people are modeling human reality pretty darn well. — Jake

As example, Catholicism dominated Western culture to a degree unimaginable today for 1,000 years, and continues to have a billion members, while few people could accurately quote anything any scientist has said, if they could even name a scientist.

Another example, the current President. Although he lies with almost every sentence, and shows every appearance of being a moron, he is President and we are not. His success at reaching his goals suggests he is modeling reality pretty darn well, at least better than his many experienced and intelligent competitors.

Your theory...

In short, the brain that models reality the closest works best.
— karl stone

... is generally sound.

But you aren't applying your own theory very well when you consistently ignore the human reality.[/quote]

Humankind is struggling from animal ignorance, into human knowledge over time. At one time, religion was the best understanding we could muster - but that was overtaken in all sorts of ways. From religion, all manner of specialist fields of knowledge grew - politics, philosophy, economics, law, science.

Each of these specialisms dropped an epistemology of faith - whereas religion retains that epistemology. i.e. it's true because the Good Book says so. It's not good enough in any other area of knowledge - because each of those would move forward, they have to be able to correct mistakes on an ongoing basis. Religion can't do that because it purports to be the word of God - the absolute truth, and requires unquestioning belief, not inquiry.

What do you we find when religion and specialist fields of inquiry come into conflict? People getting murdered, and not by those who favor inquiry. The religious kill people to maintain the ignorance of faith, and that, until very recently, has been the nature of civilization.

^Ohh! Now I understand your concern. Your concern are "Religion can't evolve, and in this reality which everything evolve, there will come a time when those evolving idea will conflict with religious idea, so it's better to put away religion, than to stuck on a stagnant way of thinking" (and also conflict of idea makes murder as you say).

We are starting to get into specific here, because you're implying "Religious people will murder people to defend their view", in which, hmmm that's not exactly correct.

Also, conflict raise because there are disagreement. But there are some "Basic Concept" that will (or should) not, or will never change. I think believing those concept is okay, because it in par with reality and it is indeed happen.Some of those "Basic Concept" is in my previous post.

Right, but that's a good brain - not a good mind.
— karl stone

^Wait... fair enough, you haven't really made your point clear. So, you are saying that religious people has a "Good Brain" or "Good Mind"? and can you define those term for me to understand : D

Brain - lump of grey matter in the skull
Mind - contents of understanding



why didn't you list any?
— karl stone

Some of it are :

- The View that we as human, have problem, and most of those problem comes from "Desire", "Desire" that implanted since birth.

- The view that human, on the deepest core, is evil (Psychology term is "tend to do evil")

- The view that there are chaos in this world, and without "Order" we won't be happy.

- The View that, under the sun (or in the universe) none are eternal.

- The view that we won't be happy even if we are able to satisfy all of our impulse. Happiness doesn't come from us satisfying our "Desire"/"Impluse" (Is an ancient idea, but epicurus make it popular I think).

- The view that to strive, we must suffer (or not avoiding pain).

- ETC[/quote]

Oh, right - so you're a Buddhist. I find it quite difficult to relate to Buddhists, because they suppress their emotions, wants and other natural impulses. How can you not see that as disabling?

Oh, right - so you're a Buddhist. I find it quite difficult to relate to Buddhists, — karl stone

^ Ummm my list, are Judeo - Christian concept / w \. ps. I also thought that Buddhist concept is arguable : D

Brain - lump of grey matter in the skull
Mind - contents of understanding — karl stone

^wait, so you're saying Blaise Pascal have little understanding of reality? and Dostoevsky too?
really? and you can also said "Bad brain can produce good understanding?" really?

I'm agnostic leaning towards Deism.

Evil = Wrong = What is pleasurable in the short term (and painful in the long term).

People are fundamentally not evil; they are fundamental Good (=Right) because its in their own interests to be right. Being Evil (=Wrong) is in no-ones best interest.

eople are fundamentally not evil; they are fundamental Good (=Right) — Devans99

Ahh, there are many debate in this issue. Because people tend to choose Short-term good then long-term/complex good. and with your view, short term good = bad

(In which you can argue again and said, that mean they are stupid, in which the argument come back again by saying "They have low Effective Inteligence")

How does atheism correlate with sadism?
— karl stone

Both Atheists and Theists try to spread their beliefs. Both beliefs are wrong but Atheism makes people unhappy and some Atheists use this to inflict pain on people. Theism in contrast makes people happy. — Devans99

So where in the world are there atheists indoctrinating children under threat of violence, social taboo, and eternal damnation? Nowhere! It would be considered child abuse and rightly so. Yet religion does this all the time.

How does atheism make people unhappy? It might make religious people unhappy - but there's nothing inherently unhappy about atheism. Life is a miracle on its own merits. It doesn't need to be gussied up with fairy tales to make it worthwhile. But if you indoctrinate a child with powerful philosophical concepts from infancy - and then dash those ideas in adulthood, you have an unhappy adult. But whose to blame? I say - the child abuser!

Theists are not perfect I agree. But mostly they are well-meaning but misguided. They are trying to help people.

Atheists are also misguided but not all are well-meaning (e.g. Dawkins). They hurt people and do not enlighten them.

I spent some years as an atheist and it was a depressing experience; would not wish that on anyone.

I think we can't say "Atheist are more happy than religious people" and said "A child with Religious Doctrine implanted since birth will be Unhappy adult". Atheism is not inherently wrong, religion also not inherently wrong.

But, both of those concept have their own merit and bad side. You shouldn't say 1 concept has no value what so ever dude, that's called ignorance dude / _ \



btw, what are your view on my statement "People are not fundamentally good" : D i'm interest in your view hahaha

At one time, religion was the best understanding we could muster - but that was overtaken in all sorts of ways. — karl stone

1) Science addresses facts about reality.

2) Religion addresses our relationship with reality.

Apples and oranges.

I'm agnostic leaning towards Deism. — Devans99

Oh, okay - the 'something out there somewhere' view of the universe. You reject religion - that would require some sort of discipline and standards from you, but wish to retain the comforting sense that someone is on overall charge? That's convenient! lol...

I'm agnostic on epistemic grounds. I know I don't know if God exists or not, so I don't worry about it. I focus on what I can know. However, I think there's a distinction to be made between God and religion. I know religion is bunk! It's the political philosophy of ages past - and there's no basis to assume religion is morally or intellectually superior to anything written today.

Evil = Wrong = What is pleasurable in the short term (and painful in the long term). People are fundamentally not evil; they are fundamental Good (=Right) because its in their own interests to be right. Being Evil (=Wrong) is in no-ones best interest. — Devans99

Evil is just a word - meant to denote extreme forms of wrong. But it's a matter of perspective, and belief. Imagine, for example - someone killed a person and tore out their heart and ate it. That's evil, right? But if your tribe believes that eating the heart of a vanquished enemy will give you his strength - then killing and cannibalism are good. You not only defended the tribe, but increased your ability to defend the tribe.

This is important, because consider the Nazis - indoctrinated with false beliefs. They were not even religious beliefs, but pseudo-scientific ideas about a hierarchy of racial types. Acting on those idea - just following orders, they murdered millions of people, and they thought it right and good.

The point I'm coming to is this - because right and wrong is a sense, not a definition, it matters what people believe. It matters that they know what's true, because false belief can justify any degree of evil - and make you believe it good.

what are your view on my statement "People are not fundamentally good" — diesynyang

That would mean people are evil=wrong. We defined wrong as what's pleasurable in the short term and painful in the long term. That would make people short term creatures. But we are long term creatures: even an 80 year old has an average life expectancy of 10 years.

So normal people are long-term creatures. Right=Good is what's pleasurable in the long term. So people are fundamentally good.

But we are long term creatures: — Devans99

^No dude, it's not about life or death (because most of our decision isn't exactly about life or death situation) . it's about the Net Happiness and Net Suffering. What your argument is true IF

People are a happy human, which most of us are happy people, and the period of that happiness is long.

Umm basically, your argument is true if you agree with the statement "The World is a happy place filled with little suffering, and most of the people live a happy live"

you get the gist of it?