3 ms·

> His core belief was in the concrete word for word truth in the bible. Intelligence didn't really play into it. Intelligence plays a key role in that, that co

> His core belief was in the concrete word for word truth in the bible. Intelligence didn't really play into it. Intelligence plays a key role in that, that core belief didn't get there by accident and an intelligent mind would not allow such a stunningly ignorant belief like that to take hold. You can't believe the earth is a few thousand years old and also claim to be intelligent. You might be intelligent about other things but in this you'd have to be willfully ignorant to not know how wrong that is. A truly intelligent mind re-examines any belief that is called into question with reasonable evidence. Sticking to your beliefs against all evidence to the contrary is stupid, and it makes you stupid.

eagleal 17y ago
> an intelligent mind would not allow such a stunningly ignorant belief... I'm not sure about that. Maybe a scientific (ie. exploratory) mind would do that. However you're assuming that ignorance is any axioms except science axioms (which at their time are facts that will time they may change, ie. the more recent Global Warming). Same applies to the evidence reexamining. An analogy: if you know by experience (a lot of trial-error) that if you touch the red button, you will seriously hurt yourself, would you push it again to re-examine your previous knowledge? I think the same dogma applies to (blind) beliefs if you were not allowed to explore in the "exploratory age". EDIT: Trial-error of beliefs cannot be based on factual experience, since they can't exist (eg. is there a God? Does the Heaven exist?).
- gnaritas 17y ago
  > Trial-error of beliefs cannot be based on factual experience, since they can't exist (eg. is there a God? Does the Heaven exist?). Yes, and it is foolish to hold beliefs that cannot be tested or validated in some way. Believing in that for which there is not or cannot be evidence is ignorant.

eagleal 17y ago

> an intelligent mind would not allow such a stunningly ignorant belief... I'm not sure about that. Maybe a scientific (ie. exploratory) mind would do that. However you're assuming that ignorance is any axioms except science axioms (which at their time are facts that will time they may change, ie. the more recent Global Warming). Same applies to the evidence reexamining. An analogy: if you know by experience (a lot of trial-error) that if you touch the red button, you will seriously hurt yourself, would you push it again to re-examine your previous knowledge? I think the same dogma applies to (blind) beliefs if you were not allowed to explore in the "exploratory age". EDIT: Trial-error of beliefs cannot be based on factual experience, since they can't exist (eg. is there a God? Does the Heaven exist?).

gnaritas 17y ago
> Trial-error of beliefs cannot be based on factual experience, since they can't exist (eg. is there a God? Does the Heaven exist?). Yes, and it is foolish to hold beliefs that cannot be tested or validated in some way. Believing in that for which there is not or cannot be evidence is ignorant.