Extreme Religious Fundamentalists Are The Least Intelligent Humans

"Extreme Religious Fundamentalists Are The Least Intelligent Humans" Well, Jesus didn't mention that... So anyway...defending the intellect of the Noah's ark brigade. No problem. Easy. Pffft. Well, when looking at the opening statement, two things occur to me initially: A) Those 'fundies' sure are dumb. B) Pro's argument is screamingly fallacious. 1) Pro has no clearly distinguished group on which he can base his claim: I start by illustrating that Pro's challenge assumes that there is an exclusive group that we can consider as extreme religious fundamentalists. How do we define this group? Let's acknowledge the basic premise of theism: There is a god, god has revealed itself and exists in the present. The circularity of the theists basic premise is fairly obvious to most. This circular reasoning applies to all theists as theism is in itself a circular argument, that is, its premise assumes its conclusion. With this in mind, how do we distinguish the ‘fundamental’ from the ‘moderate’? One theist looks to the word of the bible for their justification/explanation, and another attempts to incorporate seemingly conflicting information into his/her theocentric worldview, this does not mean that the circularity is in any way compromised. More accurately, I would suggest that the ‘circle’ may appear smaller or larger but we can not ignore that it remains a circle, the very same circle. 2) Pro’s meagre definition of intelligence:Pro: “IQ may assist in Intelligence or cleverness, but it is not really a good measure of Intelligence. Because high IQ people can still believe in stupid concepts and do extremely stupid acts.It has indeed been found that a better measure of a person's Intelligence is their Rationality, or ability to consider a set of circumstances rationally and devise a rational outcome” So, IQ (intelligence quota) assists intelligence? No, IQ is a measure (however narrow) of a cerebral aptitude.RQ (rationality quota) is a proposed method of measuring another type of cerebral aptitude.They are separate things and certainly do not hang on the necessity of coming to any particular ‘correct’ conclusion or “rational outcome”, this would again be an example of a fallacy of circular reasoning. From Pro’s source:“rationality and “good thinking” tends to be diminished by the importance we place on intelligence. But as we learned from Stanovich, the two often have very little to do with each other.” http://io9.com... Pro: “A rational outcome should be: The best possible outcome when considering all the aspects of the case, concerning, safety, consideration of those involved, primary goals and future ramifications.” Possibly. But, does this read like an exhaustive account of the heights of human intellect? I say no. I say that this does not account for the leaps in human knowledge or the reach of human intellect. I would add also, that these reaches and leaps, our vast library of examples of human intellectual transcendance of the ‘known’ care not for Pro’s definition. Consider Einstein in regards to “...safety, consideration of those involved, primary goals and future ramifications.” Essentially, Pro argues that great intelligence can be understood as a kind of aptitude for utilitarianism, of cost/benefit analysis, and this alone. This is a painful neglect and disregard for the type of intellectual capabilities that have advanced the human race beyond simply a functioning species. This being said, let’s not ignore how well we do function as an intelligent species a priori...Pro: “Some studies show that children in religious schools gain high passes on final tests. This is often pointed at by them as proof that they are not affecting the Intelligence of a student by subjecting them to Theology. Yet, they are not really measuring Intelligence there, they are mostly measuring the ability of a student to pass exams, mostly parrot fashion.” The ability and drive to mimic is fundamental to human intellect and progression. Although this in itself may not stimulate necessary critical thinking (required for intellectual ‘leaps’ , rationalism and lateral thinking such as cost/benefit analysis and propositional logic) it certainly supplies much of the required tools and materials for this to occur.Without it, we have no language, we cannot talk, we cannot walk and we certainly cannot bequeath nor inherit the vast and complex behaviours, methods and data required to make those transcendent leaps in human knowledge. Consider Einstein’s required a priori superior intelligence in order to ‘mimic’ or absorb complex information in order to make the intellectual leaps for which he is now famous. Pro: “From the outset, it does appear that the deeper a person is entrenched in dysrationalia, the less Rational, and thus less Intelligent that person will become.” ‘Dysrationalia’ does not hold that a preoccupation with irrational conclusions or pursuits is a reduction of intelligence, or that it decreases intelligence. Rather, the theory holds that irrationality is evident and becomes increasingly evident in contrast to the positive intellect of the subject. http://www.keithstanovich.com...3) Pro’s arrogant neglect of the intellect, creativity and rationalism of theism: Actually I think I will leave this point for now, it’s been a long week. Instead, on this point I will leave you to consider the following; If the premise is true, pro has to convince us that he can define in qualitative and quantitative terms the group to whom he makes the allegation, that he can successfully re-address the shortcomings of his description of intelligence and ultimately he must convince us that the likes of William Lane Craig can be categorized as an uninteligent, irrational man whom does not require to be met intellectually by the likes of Christopher Hitchens.http://www.youtube.com...