Does belief in the Flood indicate intellectual incapacity?

[Looncall]

Evidence from numerous fields such as geology, genetics and archeology shows clearly that the flood of the Genesis part of the bible cannot have happened as described there.

That account may have cultural or moral value as a story, but it clearly has none as history.

There are individuals who, in the face of the above, continue to insist that the Noah's flood story actually occurred. What is one to make of this? Has their religiosity actually impaired their ability to reason? Is their stance really political and not based on actual beliefs? What gives?

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that belief in the Flood is more indicative of the virtually universal human willingness to now and then hold beliefs that are contradicted by reason and evidence.

 

[ametist]

No, I think looking at it from your point of view, they are just giving you the opportunity to comperatively call yourself intelligent although your level of intellienge doesnt change at all with their presence or absence. It is really a favour so you may perceive yourself as intelligent. Dont you just love these people?

 

[technomage]

Belief is about choice, not impairment.

Come to think of it, acceptance of evidence is also about choice.

 

[Tumah]

New topic:
Does eating at McDonald's indicate intellectual capacity?

Disclaimer: I have never eaten at McDonalds.

 

[Revoltingest]

New topic:
Does eating at McDonald's indicate intellectual capacity?
Disclaimer: I have never eaten at McDonalds.

It could be hunger, & the fact that Subway is closed for the nite.
Disclaimer: I last ate at McDonalds when everything else along the turnpike was closed.

 

[seeking4truth]

Floods happen.

It just depends how much you want to take literally. eg. Noah was 600 years old.

There are lots of explanations which I'm sure you can find through an online search.

 

[Revoltingest]

Evidence from numerous fields such as geology, genetics and archeology shows clearly that the flood of the Genesis part of the bible cannot have happened as described there.
That account may have cultural or moral value as a story, but it clearly has none as history.
There are individuals who, in the face of the above, continue to insist that the Noah's flood story actually occurred. What is one to make of this? Has their religiosity actually impaired their ability to reason? Is their stance really political and not based on actual beliefs? What gives?

Mental incapacity is too harsh a view for the general case. I don't believe in any
of that bunk, yet many believers are smarter & more knowledgeabler than I am.
So their cognitive dissonance might best be called a quirk.

 

[Looncall]

Floods happen.

It just depends how much you want to take literally. eg. Noah was 600 years old.

There are lots of explanations which I'm sure you can find through an online search.

There are ways to explain the presence of the flood story in the bible. I entirely agree.

What I don't understand is how anyone in full possession of their faculties could believe the story as written, given the modern understanding of the world.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

It seems to me that belief in the Flood is more indicative of the virtually universal human willingness to now and then hold beliefs that are contradicted by reason and evidence.

Basically this.

In addition, I would say there is a very industrious output of pseudoscience which can convince reasonable and intelligent people that such beliefs have evidence for them. I suppose I could argue that there is an intellectual laziness in holding to that view when exposed to the actual scientific evidence, which is so damningly against it. But for people who don't have comfortable grounding in scientific discipline, distinguishing between good and bad scientific evidence and arguments is not an easy task. Just like I would be a fish out of water when it comes to a wide number of other disciplines, I wouldn't necessarily hold it against people's intellectual capacity that they can fall foul of scientific misrepresentations.

 

[ruffen]

Belief is about choice, not impairment.

Come to think of it, acceptance of evidence is also about choice.

Can you choose to believe that 2+2=5?

Either you find the evidence for/against something compelling or you don't. I don't see where choice comes into the picture.

 

[technomage]

Can you choose to believe that 2+2=5?

Seems pretty silly to me, but I suppose one could.

Either you find the evidence for/against something compelling or you don't. I don't see where choice comes into the picture.

Speaking from my own experience--when I encounter something posited as evidence for a proposition, I evaluate it, and choose whether or not to accept it.Is that not a choice?

 

[ruffen]

Evidence from numerous fields such as geology, genetics and archeology shows clearly that the flood of the Genesis part of the bible cannot have happened as described there.

That account may have cultural or moral value as a story, but it clearly has none as history.

There are individuals who, in the face of the above, continue to insist that the Noah's flood story actually occurred. What is one to make of this? Has their religiosity actually impaired their ability to reason? Is their stance really political and not based on actual beliefs? What gives?

Basically, I think that someone living in an "enlightened" part of the world today (U.S. for example) who has access to the evidence and maybe even access to Wikipedia, needs to have some sort of impairment to keep believing in the flood story. Not necessarily physical impairment to the brain, but religious indoctrination and a lifetime of not reasoning or questioning.

Also, someone who does not immediately spot the inconsistencies and fallacies of the story (like accomodating the world's animals in a boat or handling food and fecis), also needs to be logically impaired.

So in my opinion, people who today seriously actually believe in a literal true story of Noah and the flood, aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

 

[ruffen]

Seems pretty silly to me, but I suppose one could.



Speaking from my own experience--when I encounter something posited as evidence for a proposition, I evaluate it, and choose whether or not to accept it.Is that not a choice?

I don't think so. You evaluate the evidence and if it's strong enough you believe it, but I'm not sure that you can truly say that "this evidence is irrefutable but I choose not to believe it anyway".

 

[outhouse]

. What is one to make of this?

Willful ignorance can be dangerous.

Has their religiosity actually impaired their ability to reason?

Yes.


They did not use reason or knowledge to gain their current beliefs.

What gives?

The positive aspects of religion outweighs the negative.

But this is a negative aspect of religion. It shows one of the dangers of religion.


When faith over rides reality, there is a problem.

 

[Looncall]

I don't think so. You evaluate the evidence and if it's strong enough you believe it, but I'm not sure that you can truly say that "this evidence is irrefutable but I choose not to believe it anyway".

We often see a third way: lie through your teeth about the evidence in hopes of being able to ignore it.

 

[Quagmire]

Well, there are people who, for whatever reason, don't believe in geology, genetics and archaeology.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Can you choose to believe that 2+2=5?

Either you find the evidence for/against something compelling or you don't. I don't see where choice comes into the picture.

2.4+2.4=4.8

Rounded, it could read as
2+2=5

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't think a persons intellectual capability is really an issue as much as willful ignorance plays in face of facts.

"Goddidit" after all is quite a cover to use.

 

[outhouse]

Intellectual honesty would be a part of intellectual incapacity, would it not?