Reality Amplifier

The Intelligence Trap
There is an odd dichotomy regarding intelligence and thinking. Sometimes a person�s intelligence can be detrimental to good thinking.

Very often, intelligent people will take a certain view on a subject and then use his or her thinking just to support that view. This will be done with arguments that may seem (to an individual), to make a great deal of sense at the time (the intelligence trap). Since the original point of view may be based on bias, prejudice or habit, a failure to dispassionately explore the subject, or not think things all the way through is not rational (bad) thinking. It can lead one to be inflexible or rigid in one�s thinking, and to further promote positions that may not be true.

So what's the problem?
The more able a thinker is to support a point of view (through innate intelligence and communication skills) the less inclined that thinker may actually be to explore the subject, and the validity of a views foundation.

So what happens?
Intelligent people can sometimes become trapped into one point of view, and may even tend to further entrench themselves in a position by using their ability and natural intelligence to defend that view. This is what Dr. Edward de Bono calls the Intelligence Trap. You've probably even have seen this behavior first hand in discussions on this board.

Most of the views we hold today are holdovers from we were educated to believe through our parents, school, church, news, periodicals, other people, etc. Many of our beliefs have been planted through second-hand information and without examination.

We all have the ability to use the analytical part of our minds to one degree on another, yet good real reasonable (rational) thinking is a skill that takes time to develop. Some do not strive to develop that skill, which is partly attributable to the false beliefs in superstition, urban legends, political rumors and religious beliefs that exist today. While one may posses a high degree of innate intelligence, one may not have developed keen rational and thinking skills.

Without honing ones reasoning skills, people can (and do) fall prey to wishful thinking and will often continue to believe in things because they want to believe, despite contrary evidence and because they are unwilling to alter preconceived (or planted) notions. They can and will argue their beliefs based on Intelligence Trap thinking.

Human Nature and the Intelligence Trap
I have observed that in respect to human nature, people like to be right about topics they feel confident enough about to air in public, including on Internet forums. It is challenging for most people to admit they are wrong on a subject they have taken a stand on, or to reverse themselves on a position when wrong. Pride and ego get in the way. Often, it is less painful to deflect on a topic, or in worst-case scenarios, just dig in and stick to your guns despite glaring mounds of evidence contrary to one�s entrenched position.

Here is an interesting field test in human nature the next time you are discussing a debated point of view with someone. Retract your position and then tell the other person �You know what, you�re right�. It is interesting to observe the reaction of the other person, who is invariably pleased that you have validated their point of view most importantly, their intelligence and their thinking. Sometimes, I�ve even noticed that people are almost disappointed that they did not have more of an opportunity to display they intelligence with a prolonged debate.

There are examples of posts on this board where individuals (including non-Christians), will adamantly stand by claims that seem to have been effectively counter argued.

The ability that any intelligent thinker has to support a particular point of view does not remove the necessity to examining other points of view, nor does it remove the necessity of always reevaluating and validating the soundness of a view or a subject.

By dispassionately examining other views, reviewing all available information and applying reason and rational thinking, we find ourselves on the path to true knowledge. If we fail to do so, we are on the path of perceived knowledge, which can sometimes prove to be erroneous (i.e. Copernicus; Kepler;Galileo; Newton;Einstein)

Over-reliance on orthodox thinking is a danger that lies here for many otherwise intelligent people, and especially for Christians. By choosing our values, our perceptions, and our beliefs, it is usually possible for us to construct support for almost any view we like. We see Christians (and other religious adherents) do it all the time.

Christianity and The Intelligence Trap
Most Christians are intelligent people who are just caught in the Intelligence Trap. One can tell of most Christian apologetics, from reading from their diction, word selection, and sentence structures that they are indicative of intelligent minds. They are clearly capable of expressing their points. There can be a difference between intelligence and good thinking however.

Keep in mind, most people believe what they believe because they were educated to do so. They will naturally argue what they think and were taught is true.

The difference between most skeptics and them is that skeptics have extricated themselves from the Intelligence Trap in regards to accepting Christian theology. Most disbelievers have dispassionately (for the most part) considered other points of views, have applied clear unbiased reasoning and rational thinking and have discerned that Christianity is a sham.

It is challenging to reach out to Christians and have them genuinely question what they deem to be common knowledge. Questioning the veracity of the bible, doubting miracles, or any part of their belief system is as they would say�blasphemy (i.e. Galileo). This response is sometimes a pitfall of relying too much on orthodox thinking and indicative of the Intelligence Trap in action. Christians providing supporting arguments to shore up weak or contradictory areas in Christian theology is a cheap and expedient way of thinking, but it saves face for the Christian defender�s intelligence. Their internal view is that of course they wouldn�t believe in something that isn�t true! They are intelligent people after all!! And they go through intricate intellectual gymnastics as a consequence of the Intelligence Trap.

How Did They Christians Get in the Intelligence Trap?
Many Christians have had their belief system instructed from childhood. Belief systems are handed down from parent to child from generation to generation. For an individual to dispassionately examine their belief system is obviously not an easy process.

For individuals that have arrived at their beliefs of Christianity by themselves, or having been led to the belief in Christianity by others is also a problem. If they are wrong in accepting the belief, there is the potential embarrassment to contend with at having to admit to others and themselves that they believed in something erroneous. It is painful to think one might have been gullible

Additionally, for those who have elected Christianity by a process of selection, they will not want to hear that they might have made an error in judgment. To do so is also insulting to their intelligence, and embarrassing to one�s ego.

Most will rather argue than abandon their positions or sincerely examine contrary evidence. They thereby avoid facing the uncomfortable reality that they embraced and supported a false position which they accepted by lazy thinking and a lack of due diligence.

"When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I
could do it myself."- Mark Twain

Christians and The Bible (Intelligence Trap in Action)
The bible contains false prophecy, scriptural errancy, absurdities, inconsistencies, brutality, murder, rape, incest, killing of infants, and other points that Christians cannot morally reconcile or explain. It is known that the early church fathers were guilty of pious fraud in tampering with bible texts to support the biased ends. Yet Christians site it as their article of faith and claim it has authority because they say (rather they have been told or falsely educated to believe) that it is the word of God.

Ask the Christian to prove the bible is the word of God, or how they know the bible is the word of God. They cannot. The best they come up with are vague answers pointing to the bible is the word of God because they �feel� it is, or have �experienced� things that vindicate for them it must be the word of God.

Another use of �proof� commonly provided are its antiquity, and the archeological references within the bible to places that exist or are known to have existed. However, Homer's Iliad and Odyssey were written around 850 BC. Troy was found, yet one does not typically believe the stories in those works are true, or the Gods depicted in them exist.

The Intelligence Trap one of the reasons why the bible is still perpetuated by Christians as being the true word of God. They use their native intelligence to the best of their respective thinking abilities to argue the bible�s veracity as the word of God. Some do it better than others, yet few of them in the process of supporting their positions escape the Intelligence Trap and see their position for what it is�which is false. The bible is not the true word of God. It is only the Intellectual gymnastics on the part of Christians, put in motion by the Intelligence Trap that the notion the bible is the word of God still exists today.

�It is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving, it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe� � Thomas Paine

Avoiding the Intelligence Trap
Being aware of the Intelligence Trap is the first step for us to avoid it as individuals. Employing lateral thinking and unorthodox approaches to topics is also effective. As far as getting Christians tuned into the concept�that is just up to us.

I believe we can add additional protection against accidentally going astray by actively exploring other views using reason, common sense, and just doing some research. A final pitfall to be cognizant of when researching, is that even some source materials may be end results of the Intelligence Trap in action. In the end one may choose to come back to their first view... but this should only be after exploring other views.

Obviously there is a practical limit to this, but it is healthy to sometimes question what you think you know.

You can sometimes be surprised at what you will learn.

"The biggest cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid people are so sure about things and the intelligent folks are so full of doubts."- Bertrand Russell

Best Regards to All,

-Reality Amplifier

McNamara

Good post. I've been caught in your "Intelligence Trap" many times, and not just when I was a Christian.

I do take issue with one point, though it is a minor one:

I would argue that the five scientists you listed were not on the path of perceived knowledge, but true knowledge. The fact that many of their conclusions have proven to be erroneous does not detract from their accomplishments. They did the best they could with the knowledge available at the time. Newton did not have the same empirical evidence available to him that Einstein did, hence his laws of gravity only hold true under a limited set of initial conditions. Newton was on the path to true knowledge because his methods were correct, and the accuracy of his conclusions are irrelevant.

Another way to put it would be that we are only on the path to true knowledge if we examine the information we have before making a conclusion. Those who use evidence to support a foregone conclusion have fallen into the intelligence trap.

Jolly_Penguin

But isn't that what most scientists do? Come up with a theory or hypothethis and try to prove it correct? Don't they invest lots of money and pride in their prediction and expect to see it come true? Aren't they biased in their observations?

I commend the OP. I have noticed this "intelligence trap" in action and I agree with the previous post that one SHOULD try to see all the evidence and arguments before adopting an opinion... but how many of us actually do that?

I think this Intelligence Trap is more rampant than most would like to admit.

As for its occurrence in religious stance, I agree that christians adopt their belief in God and then seek to back it up (rather than the other way around). But I think the majority of die hard atheists do the same thing. To them I ask "What evidence would you need to prove a God?". I expect that no matter what proof they were given they would dismiss it as a hallucination, etc.

My last comment on this Intelligence Trap is that at least those caught in it ATTEMPT to think about the issue. It is the dogmatics who simply won't think (and I'm not just talking about religionists) that bother me the most.

McNamara

I consider my belief to be an ongoing project. It may change any day - to me it's more important to know I'm being honest with myself than it is to make a conclusion and find a reason for it ("See! I told you I was right!").

Right now I'm a strong atheist. I certainly have nothing to gain from this viewpoint; I hold it because it's the conclusion that seems to best fit the evidence (or lack thereof) that I've seen.

Indeed there are cases of science finding evidence to support a conclusion already made. The Big Bang is one such theory, but its origin does not damn the theory to errancy. Perhaps new evidence will come along that debunks it, but what is happening instead is something that happens with a great deal of scientific theory. It evolves. Like my beliefs, there will never be a time when we can sit down, say "Ta-dah!" and consider the matter resolved for all eternity. Our personal beliefs, like good scientific theories, must evolve in the light of new evidence or a different line of intuitive reasoning. Perhaps new evidence or reason will completely debunk and old theory or belief, sometimes it will serve to reinforce the conclusion, and often it will merely be an agent of change and evolution for the idea.

Perhaps instead of considering the linear Scientific Method as the only way to attain viable knowledge, by following the steps and ending with a conclusion, one should incorporate the steps of the method into an iterative process that continues even after conclusions are made.

prometheus bound

i'm a believer and yet i admit you make a good a point in regards to the intelligence trap. i don't agree with it, but it certainly had
good diction, word selection, and sentence structures. it was very indicative of an intelligent mind.

wow, you've fallen into your own trap and let me tell you why. you believe the following:

"By dispassionately examining other views, reviewing all available information and applying reason and rational thinking, we find ourselves on the path to true knowledge."

reason and rationality are your gods-- you don't aknowledge the limits of human reason. therefore, through some means you have come to falsely believe in the omnipotence of human reason leading to a belief in eventual omniscience (true knowledge)-- this is a faulty belief and you have fallen prey to wishful thinking leading to perceived knowledge not true knowledge. reason and rationality will never lead to omniscience and therefore you will never have perfect knowledge through those means. which indicates there will always be error in human thought which dashes your premise and desire for this so called true knowledge

another false premise you've made is the ability to pursue truth with nuetrality, tell me how is that possible? you come to the table with a fundamental pressuppostion just like i do, the difference is that you won't admit it. but you've revealed it in your monologue: human reason and rationality are your gods and you serve them vigorously

Lanakila

This is a bold assertion that may sound all pious but its downright offensive to be honest. To believe that the God of the Bible exists you have to use reason and knowledge as well. Your reasoning abilities have led you to believe that a book is written by man, but inspired by God and so you believe the words of that book blindly. You have very little to prove this. It is mostly blind faith, and trusting those who supposedly know. (Pastors, elders, theology teachers, ect)

Godless Wonder

Nice post overall. One minor question though. Is this really true? My parents were atheist, so I never had to extricate myself from the intelligence trap (excepting perhaps the atheistic one I'm caught in.) Are the majority of atheists deconverts as your statement presumes? What proportion are deconverts?

Godless Wonder

Two points in response to this: 1) Nobody thinks "the omnipotence of human reason" leads "to a belief in eventual omniscience (true knowledge)" That is a strawman. 2) You dismiss reason as "inadequate", but any sensible arguments which dispute your views are all based on reason. Therefore there exist no arguments which will convince you that you are wrong. You're trapped with your belief whether you like it or not, due to your rejection of reason, because you do not admit any possibility that there exists a rational argument which can change your mind. (This is the "argument" I've come to think of as "the sword of irrationality." )

prometheus bound

unfortunately you assume i am appealing to irrationality-- i am not. i am simply acknowledging reason's limits unlike you:

"By dispassionately examining other views, reviewing all available information and applying reason and rational thinking, we find ourselves on the path to true knowledge."

you do not acknowledge the immediate or ultimate limits of reason and rationality, therefore in essence you have given it all power (albeit by ommission) then you say this power can lead us to "true knowledge" -- how have i set up a straw man?


"but any sensible arguments which dispute your views are all based on reason."

yes, often fallacious reason based on a false ultimate presuppostion-- you are not anymore neutral or objective in your pursuit of truth than i am, get over it! reason can only go so far and through your reason you cannot prove that God does not exist, you assume it and work from there. the problem is when the foundation is not there it does not matter what you build or what you use to build (reason) the building will not stand.

"Therefore there exist no arguments which will convince you that you are wrong. You're trapped with your belief whether you like it or not, due to your rejection of reason, because you do not admit any possibility that there exists a rational argument which can change your mind."

true enough i don't think that there is a so called rational argument that will change my mind but then again when you employ rationality it is not pure, naked rationality it is your very subjective take based on your ultimate presupposition.
also rationality is not the end all be all-- existential experience is also part of the equation, you mentioned in your monologue some just "feel" like the the Bible is God's Word. the testimony of experience whether or not you can prove it is still part of human knowledge. you can't prove that you love your wife or husband, that doesn't make it any less true. nor can you prove time or space but i assume you believe in them.
i'm not calling for the disposal of reason merely putting it in its place along side experience and heart knowlege or intuition.
but you dismiss any evidence but reason's.
i know a man who grew up as an atheist, became an engineer at NASA but who came to faith through an experience (not at church!), their are many like that-- what does that say about the intelligence trap.

you also, my friend, are trapped because you do not admit that there are any existential arguments that can change your mind
i argue for a more wholistic view of human knowledge

a final word here from Mr. Pascal

Blaise Pascal "Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it. It is merely feeble if it does not go as far as to realize that. If natural things are beyond it, what are we to say about supernatural things"

McNamara

Yeah, that was a nice strawman you had until Godless Wonder pointed it out.

This, on the other hand, is a valid point:
Too right. But "heart knowledge" can't explain how black holes are formed or what happens when an electron and a positron collide. Intuition is an aid to rational thinking, not an end unto itself.

I reserve subjective feelings for the personal subjects like love and music. When we explore the nature of the universe we have to make our best effort to be objective and rational. No, we'll never fully understand the universe, and there are limits to our reasoning powers. The path to true knowledge doesn't imply that we'll actually achieve omniscience, it means we are using all available evidence and rationally examining it to come to the most accurate conclusion possible. Naturally even atheists have emotions about their beliefs, like everyone, but we have to try to recognize how those emotions effect the way we think, to avoid becoming caught in the Intelligence Trap.

You obviously have personal reasons for your religious belief, like most people. That's fine. But I have never had a subjective experience or intuition about God, so the best you can do to attack my lack of belief is "you don't understand" or "you have to open your heart to God." Believe me, I have. I didn't want to arrive at the conclusion that God doesn't exist, I really wanted him to exist. I just couldn't be truthful to myself if I maintained my belief in the face of all the empirical evidence.