I keep getting all these replies criticizing IQ tests. Again, can anyone else provide a more culture-fair and objective way to test for intelligence than the army study I provided? If you don't believe IQ tests are that useful, do you at least agree that intelligence is?
CuriousGirl. That army attribute sounds useful and measurable. Its an aspect of what most people think of as intelligence.
There exist tasks that people with this attribute perform better at; e.g., performing calculations.
Jason Lisle, the guy who uses the stupid strawman argument that logic comes from God, likely has a high army intelligence. I'm going to bet, his processing speed is very high. I'm not sure he's a better "thinker".
There is a guy from my high school, Ian Juby, who has a high IQ and likely a good processing ability. He has a mensa group on intelligent design
I'm suggesting a possibility, that other aspects may exist which may not be caused by this one. The flaw, if there is a flaw would be encapsulating intelligence into a single attribute.
Do I agree intelligence is useful? Well, what you mean is, do I think identfying people of high intelligence is useful? Potentially yes but I think it would be far more useful to identify the different aspects and identify which ones apply to which sorts of tasks. Again, compare intelligence to athletic ability
Some people are all round good athletes but there do exist people who are good sprinters and poor long distance runners.
Is an IQ test is useful. There are likely tasks that people with good IQs are better at than other people. If I wanted to pick a good candidate for a quiz show, I'd certainly grab somebody with a good IQ. They are probably better at Crosswords and other tasks The british army used them for cracking codes.
I think that personality may be a factor for atheism, yes, but to firmly grasp the reasons why God isn't real, rather than simply relying on one argument, such as Russell's tea pot, one must critically analyze information (such as the contradictory verses in the Bible, evolution vs creationism, etc).
Actually, curiousgirl, the other arguments are all rat holes
. None of them lead anywhere really.
For example, evolution vs creationism. That is a rathole; e.g., the catholic church acknowledges that the earth is old and that evolution happened. Very few people have the background to know all the science involved in proving evolution and old earth in any detail. Its more a matter of talking points and believing that the published results of the scientific establsihment have some validity.
Contradictory verses in the bible? People have means of resolving those contradictions. A whole range of interpretations exists. Deists exist who believe in a non-biblical God who walked away
see patterns aka sign posts to the supernatural but dont acknowledge the bible. Every new interpretation becomes a wind mill.
On the otherhand, get back to Russel's point. (I concede Russel may have had a high processing ability; I'm unsure. Von Newmann did.) Why does one believe in God?
Otherwise, when unbiased theists ask for valid reasons for your atheism, if you can't provide an intelligent answer, they may not take you seriously. Who would you take more seriously? A person who became an atheist based on personality, or someone who really thought through why they should be an atheist?
Processing speed isn't the best attribute for coming up with convincing arguments there.
Given that the best arguments are really the simplest ones; i.e., shifting the burden of proof back and demanding one to "show me", ....