90% bull? I still haven't heard why. All the things you describe are as likely to be injected by an all encompassing entity as they are inherent to a certain level op intelligence. Increasing complexity of the brain and the accompanying leap of development should not be simply explained away by any one theory, and saying this could not have been a logical flow of life in itself sounds akin to saying: 'Computer technology cannot have been slowly evolved on earth, because there's thousands of years without hardly any, then _boom_ within a fraction of that time, there's tons!'. Maybe a real life 'Andrew' will one day teach us that a synthetic brain can one day convince us that intelligence isn't all that it's cracked up to be - or maybe not. I still think it's preposterous to exclude the possibility.

Also, 'accident' is a strange choice of words. It seems to imply something went 'wrong'. This is different than calling it a 'coincidence', which sounds way more plausible than to say something eternal messed up and got a nasty hairless-ape-virus to deal with. Also, without even beginning to realize the apparant immense size of the universe around us, it would only be ODD if the perfect conditions for life didn't show up once or twice. To automatically consider ourselves holy creations simply because we think we're special is quite pompous. Sometimes you can be madly in love with a person that just don't gives a shit about you - the dreams, hopes and fantasies about a shared eternity together are wonderful, but not nescessarily true, just because you feel them to be right, desireable or even likely ;]
I'm not saying I rule out this possibility, but I often wonder why so many people are ready to rule out others without a second thought.

I also agree with Phoenix: Teach it all. Try and chart it out, let people choose objectively and without fascist 'guidance'.

No matter how complex the series of events leading up to something, if you think about the possibility of the universe being infinite, not even a trillion events in succession is a significantly large number to rule out coincidence. Let's say, for the sake of argument, 1. that the universe is indeed infinite and 2. that we are the only planet sporting life of any kind out there. In that case, I'd be willing to seriously consider the possibility of ruling out coincidence in occurance of events leading up to all this.

Usage of percentages in the discussion of such theories is kind of odd, since there's no statistical approach to be used in any way, so I'll refrain from commenting on the amounts presented. However, I did mention inductive evidence in my previous post. Besides that, there's simply the logic of the thing. Give something millions of years, and (as can be observed in nature nowadays) the weak and sickly die off, while the stronger prosper. I see absolutely no reason to doubt the logic of this, and it fits perfectly in the balanced system of nature. If something is found that utterly disproves any such possibility, again, I'd be interested to hear about that, but so far I've not seen anyhing other than words on paper, written by humans. Testimony which I consider to be more likely to contain fallacy than actual observable nature surrounding us.
Ofcourse it's a theory, but I won't repeat myself on specifics, so are other theories. It is to this  day only in theory true that we actually exist, and aren't a figment of our own imagination, so to speak - yet it is highly inproductive to keep reminding ourselves of that, while there is work to be done.

-

I'm not about to go on faith fairly quickly, as you may have noticed. I'm agnostic and when someone is simply stating that intelligence (on a certain level) does not automatically lead to conscience and self-awareness, this does not compell me to accept it out of the blue. What proof is there? How can one be so sure about such matters? Again, it seems somewhat arrogant to assume our feelings are divine and that other intelligent beings now, and in the future, are incapable of having any.

Consider this bit of reasoning:

If a being is intelligent enough to wonder about , contemplate and overrule instincts (such as the preservation of a child), is it not less likely that instincts alone can compell the mother to protect the child?
If complex thought patterns can overtake the mother in times when her child is in danger, forcing her to weigh possible outcomes, the danger to herself, other options etc etc - it only follows that more time passes before the mother takes action, endangering the child.
What could solve this problem? 'Instinct' on a different level, perhaps. If the mother has some kind of impulse that overrules any such delay of action in times of need, it can be the key to decisive action, while, under other circumstances, allowing the mother to think things through. Love would do the trick, I think.

Ofcourse, the above is just a simple practical theory, but it serves as an example - it (and such explanations of other emotions and thoughts) can be discussed, but it cannot be winked away just like that - by saying conscience is a gift of a being that can only be understood through faith, and not ever by reasoning. I find it more likely that a divine spark brought the entire universe into life as a magnificent puzzle building onto itself, than that a divine being simply created some dead environment and smacked some unexplainable gifts into the mix here and there.

On a side note: I always think about things. The time it takes to proceed the argument is not always under a minute, but I'll do my best to set that limit, if you so desire. j/k :]
-

Everyone is after truth - my point is that many people are so eager to find it, that they are content in finding truths that cannot be proven, explained or discussed, rather than finding stepping stones leading to truths that can be. Again a certainty in your message that I cannot understand: How can you be so certain that we will never understand everything, or why we are here? What brings you to that conclusion? Sure, if ever, it won't be tomorrow. But that's how far I'm willing to go in the ways of certainty. These scientific (and any other viable) theories are, like I said, stepping stones. They are to be tested, built upon, attacked and defended for as long as is nescessary. Some have been disproven already, or been replaced by better ones. Some have been forgotten. Others are still going strong, just like some religious principles are.
I simply prefer theories that are open for discussion, and actually asking to be disproved, instead of theories that claim to be certainties (and in some countries, arguing them can get you killed).

To get that nice word back into the fray: I also find it pompous when one claims we will, with certainty, find out everything there is to know, eventually. I find it equally questionable when one states this cannot be so, with equal certainty. And that's the word I'm talking about; certainty.
When one claims certainty of any sort, when considering The Big Questions, one is being pompous, IMO.

-

Djeez, you make me type my keyboard in two :]

-

Edit: The theory of evolution is not (part of) a religion. It is not to be taken on faith. It is a scientific theory. Scientific theories have a definite place in schools.

You can get failed for expressing conservative beliefs in some colleges, so don't question out loud. Professors jealously guard their values, ideologies, and institutions no matter how batshit insane they are.

Pho: (strong) Atheism is a senseless concept anyway. It means to take on faith that no god exists - that's like having a grudge against a concept, and discarding it simply because of that.
Aside from that, although it would obviously be very nice to know that life is indeed not meaningless (by the definition of divinity etc), I would not take that as a reason to make certain assumptions.


'Science' does not dictate anything. It is a means to try and understand things. And yes, possibly everything. If a friend tells me something that does not fit into the current collection of models representing the world we live in, then there is reason to both question the comment aswell as the model(s).

Who says we are not meant to develop ourselves in a way that makes us a 'god' one day? Maybe our task is to understand everything, and eventually, perpetuate existence by setting a new (better?) universe in motion, which would, by some people's definition, make us God. It seems no less likely to me than that we are doomed to lead a neverending struggle.

Again this unceremonious certainty - 'we will never be perfect', 'we will never know everything'. This is a belief you have, and no matter how often you will repeat it, does not automatically make it true. It's fine if you choose to believe it - but do not make it part of a serious discussion or argumentation - unless you're ready to argue it like any other theory or concept.
Which brings me to my point: Where does this connect to whether or not theories should be taught in schools? Is the use of intellectual contemplation under attack? Should schools stop trying to make people question things or philosophize about such matters? I'd rather have a million people in doubt, questioning and striving for understanding, than a million person claiming to know the truth because he or she believes it to be so. (the question is, where would I keep them all?)


Ehr, now you're preaching the existence of a Creator to me - if thousands of years of human civilization didn't come up with something to convince me outright, you can be sure you won't succeed converting me with a few posts on a messageboard :]

Again, many assumptions without grounds: 'a design exists' even 'obviously', 'there must be a designer', 'the principle of causality is unshakeable'. All interesting concepts, sure enough - but none relate directly to the question(s) at hand, and all are derived from certain beliefs. There is no reason to exclude the possibility that life is meaningless, without 'design' (that is: without it being planned ahead). People (and yes, scientists are simply that; people) are eager to believe and accept otherwise, and that is fine, up to a point.

When Galilei discovered that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and that the Sun did not circle the Earth, but that it was the other way around, it was considered preposterous: how could it be that there would be such a distance between man and god? How could it be that there was so much emptiness out there, that we were just vulnerable specks on a 'random' planet? If I recall, people didn't embrace this theory at the time, the church ofcourse claiming it to be nonsense. However, it was true.

Therefore, I do not find it likely that even if we find compelling evidence for the complete randomness of life and the universe, people will simply not accept it. If there is a Creator and it is watching over us, I would find it logical that it would feel disappointment when it would find we wouldn't try to understand it's creation as it is.

I'm ready for anything, or at least I'm trying to be.

P.S. I still don't see how this last bit connects to the subjects taught in schools, but I guess that's the design of this thread? :}

That this was stated as such makes sense to me - at the time people wrote it down, there was no other viable 'center of creation' than the Earth. Or maybe I'm typing that because I just don't like discussing things in the context of bible translations and the like. It's like watching a Hieronymus Bosch painting; beautiful concepts and displays, but I wouldn't enjoy discussing the portrayed scenes as a reality, for I cannot realistically see them as such.
It would also be more enjoyable if I could find a version of the bible that I would trust enough to actually read in its entirety - perhaps the literary version that was recently released in the Netherlands..


The same goes for the above; no offense, but what Jesus said (or is thought to have said)  what he meant by it and if it goes for the entire universe, and not just the bit we inhabit is not fact to me. 'Revelations' may say so, but I fear that doesn't do the trick for me :]
If one considers a Gaya theory, we could represent little 'cells' of a huge 'organism', thus fulfilling a role - in that sense, everyone and everything is important in a way, but still small and possibly random. The same could be said of very interesting and equally likely Asian religions. Just like the things you mention, accepting such a ideas requires faith.



As far as I'm concerned, we still do not nescessarily possess significantly more knowledge than in the dark ages. It is much safer to discuss and argue these matters today, but still stupidity reigns supreme (judging by the things people commonly bash eachother's skulls over, for example ;]). Unless there exists a good idea of the upper limit (if any) of human knowledge, it seems odd to me to consider ourselves particularly knowledgeable at this point.
Additionally, more people studying ancient texts also means more interpretations, variations and an ever growing vagueness of the contents, combined. Also, to this day, people exist that take practically everything in the bible literally - I'm inclined to believe those people should refrain from reading, if at all possible.


I fear it is too late, this is now a religious debate ;]
After this post, I will not address religious topics, for I prefer to discuss those reclining on a comfortable pluche sofa, sipping a fine whiskey and without keyboard interfacing. Endless and unresolvable discussions are not for The Uncomfortable.


The summary of my comments on the actual (ehr, the actual second) main subject of this thread:

- My definition of material that should, exclusively, be taught in public education institutions is as follows:
Anything and everything that 1) may be openly and freely contemplated, discussed and criticized, 2) is not considered controversial in its own nature by common opinion* 3) is purposeful for the pupils, either as tool to exercize and increase mental abilities, or as a collection of relevant and applicable information.

Wherein 1) and 3) should hold in universal or global context, and 2) in the appropriate neighbourhood of the institution.

* distinction to make here: I'm saying that the facts about the death penalty (history, anatomy of a trial, related laws) should be taught, but not 'facts' about whether or not it is morally right, whether or not gods have a say in it, etc.. - Because there is no general controversy about
the former, only about the latter.


Thus, my standpoint on the discussed topics & education:
- Since issues political in nature are (generally) controversial, they should (in general) not be taught in schools.
- Since religious beliefs are (generally) controversial, they should (in general)  not be taught in schools. Note that this does not include the historical facts about religious practices and the like.
- Since the theory of evolution is not generally considered controversial (and, as discussed, conforms perfectly to 1) and 3) in my definition), it should be taught in any institution that is not located in an area inhabited mostly by fanatical creationists (for instance).

Whether or not the implied nescessity of relocation for people in some cases is a good thing or not, is obviously a brow-raiser - I wouldn't like to get into that here, but that would be a seriously heated debate, I'm sure :]

Apparantly, I'm in disagreement with Little Washu over either 1), 2) and 3) or all of them. :]



Add: 'presented without bias, open for discussion and criticism' to that last line, and I utterly agree.

---

P.S. As a mindgame, assume the following hypotheses:
0. God exists.
1. The spiritual center of the universe is the planet Earth.
2. Our sun dies, consuming our planet (and practically our entire solar system).
3. The human race manages to colonize other solar systems or even galaxies.

What then, has happened to the center of the universe? Does it continue to exist within the supernova, or at the previous coordinates of the Earth? Is the actual position still relevant? Or, could it simply disappear?  Could it be automatically transferred to the new center of human civilization (if any)? Or would it not be possible for humans to escape, and would the death of the sun (or something else, like the moon crashing down) be the famous Apocalypse?

Very intesting arguements by all.

As to the topic:

I'll be off to collage in two years or so, so I can't really comment on any sort of bias there, however on the high school front -

My school seems to be alot more balanced due to the area I'm in; a rural town with a university, so there is a mix of conservative and liberal teachers, as well as a mixed student body, slightly conservative-leaning. However one thing that I find really great about my school and its teachers, is that no matter the political leaning, 9/10 will accept arguement and debate, in or out of class depending on whether it's appropriate. My liberal civics teacher presents both sides of politics, and picks articles from both liberal and conservative sources to hand out. My conservative science teacher spends a day at the beginning of each semester making sure that people realize that religion and theories of evolution etc.. should taken as such, as theories, and his place is simply to present the evidence on the scientific side of things. ( he did, however mildly gloat when bush won.... yuck! )

For the most part, it really depends on the student as to whether he or she is influenced by the teacher's political leanings; I for one tend to discredit biased things my teachers might say until I've heard more from others.

And, yes, if someone is kicked out of a class for dissenting ideas,  then there is something severely wrong...

 ~

Don't get me wrong, I'm still open to the possibility that biblical explanation(s) are right - I just do not have the knowledge required to discuss them (and I have indeed that 'problem' of having to find a version that is least likely to have been tainted by human politics - again, not ruling out the divine hand in getting the message across, but at this point I find it easier to accept that the message (if it exists) is within us, not within books).

I am also equally open-minded (or try to be, I am already tainted by life, as everyone is ) to Shinto (and ancient Japanese thoughts on karma), Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, (weak) Atheism, Pantheism, ancient Egyptian beliefs etc etc. I make some exceptions (like with strong Atheism, as discussed earlier) and I tend to shy away from intolerance and fanatics.

The downside of all that is that it requires an enormously broad collection of knowledge, and I do not like to delve too deeply into any single direction. I'd need to justify such a specific route to myself.
That's why (weak) Agnosticism suits me perfectly right now - I feel confused; am in doubt. I have feelings I cannot explain, but I also have a feeling my brain is the key to my own development, and that it is exactly that development which is the proper path to follow. I understand and actually feel the importance of a moral balance in life, but I am confused at the way zealots slaughter eachother over beliefs that preach in the very core a calm, peaceful, balanced life where one should have compassion and understanding for his fellow humans (and birds, I guess).


Point taken, and agreed upon.
It was not intended to be very cynical though - I have no 'bad vibe' about our level of knowledge, rather a good one about our seemingly endless possibilities and our room for growth. Let me put it like this - I have the inclination to believe that we will be way cooler on every level than Star Trek tries to show us :]


This is what I was talking to you about in the IRC channel - there is no way for us to settle a dispute about this, and I see no point in shifting this into a discussion of whether or not there can be only one correct perspective and which one of those is correct if there can't be - to put this into another context: I'm at this point sooner inclined to find divinity in math (in the beauty and the apparent flawlessness of it), and accept that as the language of God, than the Bible. There are two perspectives on the former, and the truth is a yes/no discussion, like the one about biblical truths, but it would be more in harmony with my views so far.

For instance, (since I do not believe in the impossibility of corruption and falsehood in texts and the understanding of them) religious texts may well have been distorted and adjusted for political gain, for power and control over 'the unknowing' - whereas math had less chance of that. Ofcourse, to undermine my whole reasoning here, math does not apparantly say anything to us about the way we should live (which obviously makes it less of a candidate for that) and that makes it a less functional writ for religious purposes ;]

Again, I do not rule out the possibility of a divine, uncorruptable message, and its connectedness with the Bible, I just do not see it as a certainty, and haven't tools to prove or disprove it - yes/no-ing on it does not have my fancy :]


Also addressed in IRC ;]
I always feel up to the challenge to share and discuss viewpoints - I do not feel up to the challenge of attacking/defending beliefs - especially not the kind where in some way things reek like 'unbelievers are unworthy, cannot see the true light of God, REPENT SINNER'. Now now, I know you don't bend that way, but there is not enough room to share 'the footing of agreement' when discussing perspectives of believers vs. unbelievers, and creating an unleapable gap between them.


BS is a bit strong
But I do agree - to entirely exclude controversies is perhaps not the answer. I do think parents are responsible for addressing these issues, since they hold the main chunk of responsibility for their offspring - the problem is that capable parents are for some odd reason getting rare indeed.
I do agree with you, however, that the messages of (at the very least) the main religions should be taught to everyone. I sort of chalked up the message and facts about what a religion dictates to be non-controversial in itself - to me, it is statements about it's truth or falsehood that are a constant controversy.
Teaching someone that they are backwards for holding a belief is clearly wrong - but that would be addressing a controversy: opinions about the truth in beliefs. By my definition, this should not be happening in educational institutes :]



That would be most undesireable - but I think the responsibility for preventing that lies not with (obligatory) education, but in life outside of it (and preferrably, after education took place). In school: the 'facts' - outside of it: the application of the facts on controversy.


True, but perhaps you misunderstand me about the scale on which I would have this happen - I would want everything to be taught in schools, excepting those things which are controversial in their own nature, to be taken on belief and directing the Choice of the pupil.
For example, I would have taught at institutions the contents of the bible (the ten commandments, the teachings of Jesus and his followers, etc), along with the teachings of other world religions, but not statements about the whether or not following those teachings is right or wrong. yes to completeness of options, no to the direction of choice.
On second thought, perhaps the wording of 2) should indeed be changed, it is too vague, in any case, and:
I agree that the majority rule aspect is problematical. I made the mistake of combining feasibility with a perfect-world solution. In the perfect world, people can come to agreement on where to make the division between fact, theory and belief - in real life, this is obviously not the case (judging by, for example, this thread :]).
So, in a perfect-world situation, there would be a universal selection of teaching material. In practice, I'm not sure what would work, however.


Maybe I based the conclusion that it isn't too much on the general opinion in the Netherlands alone. The theory of evolution is accepted here (and can be discussed without mishap) with practically everyone, excepting a handful of creationists, huddling together in small towns here and there - not to disregard them, it is only to indicate that there is a clear minority. I don't regularly visit the States, so I'll make no assumptions about its inhabitants here :]


This is basically the crux of my reasoning: If they're not taught both sides in their formal education, will they ever get that knowledge, and with it, the choice?

In my perfect world, people are given all the knowledge, but are free to make decisions about beliefs themselves - thus, they would know all about the inner workings of all world religions, but are free to choose which, if any, they will follow.
The problem is ofcourse, that this is not a perfect world, not all the facts can be presented and often the choices are made for people when they are too young to question them.

Even so, if all the options are presented correctly, anyone should be able to make the right choice for themselves - whether or not they'd enter the learning process with a bias, prejudice, or a pre-made choice would be up to parents and the like. Knowing that there's still parents out there teaching their 3 yr. olds that 'Niggers are worthless', I realize there's little hope for some, in this respect.

Fixing this by letting government (or indeed 'majority rule') have a say in fighting these biases would be problematic too. If 'objective' institutions get a say in what's right and wrong   on that level, would make for an extremely dangerous political tool (I will refrain from making comparisons with Third Reich 'education' here (oops, too late)), as you point out. I guess I prefer leaving that open, and not placing that directive in the hands of educational institutes.



Agreed. I have a feeling we're dancing around the same idea, using different wording to confuse eachother of the meaning ;]


Aye - although I would make the distinction of choosing to be ignorant and choosing not to decide. Where the latter beats the former in some ways :]



If only it wasn't so..

---

Actually, I didn't know. I enjoy that kind of thing myself. It allows me to contemplate and explore things without having to accept beliefs (other than for the sake of argument) or 'be converted' so to speak. I had no idea you disliked it yourself.


Neither is the case: I did not include it to disprove or attack anything. It is hair-splitting, yes, and it was not intended to reach any conclusive resolution. Note the three dashes separating it from the body of my post. If it gave you the impression that I wasn't taking your perspective seriously, or that I was attacking it - regard it as non-existent, this was not my intention. I just enjoy speculation of that sort, regardless of relevance or outcome - it's part of the 'practical philosopher' in me.

Likewise for the comic parody: it was not to be taken seriously. I enjoy the joke, but ofcourse I don't agree with the violence, intolerance and bigotry. Again, if it offends you, disregard it or know that I too consider it to be bollocks.

I like interluding serious discussion with mindgames and crude jokes, to serve as an intermezzo, which relaxes my 'thinking-muscles' :]

A(nother) reason why it seemed there was more disagreement is perhaps that I tend to be the 'Devil's Advocate' when it is clear that one side in some specific argument is well spoken for already - which can be somewhat misleading, since most agreements end up only being detectable 'between the lines'

Yes, I think I've missed quite a few heated confrontations - It's not very often that I find CC threads interesting enough to follow through entirely, especially not when they become fights for some stupid reason. Discussion does not work when any or all parties act like battering rams - we all know how annoying it is to talk to someone that uses your speaking time to think over what he/she has to say, instead of listening.

And lastly; even if that colonization will ever become reality, at least it's rather a long way off, and a lot of (good?) things can happen still :]

What you describe here is why we have laws. Laws should IMO be taught in schools, for they are fact. The ten commandments are factual in that they are noted and stored at some point in history. They can be read, they can be presented, they cannot be proven to be right. To say there is no doubt at all that the commandments are in any way the exact prescription of The Good Life, is akin to saying God exists. It is absolutely fine if that is your belief, but it is unreasonable to press them upon others solely for it being anyone's conviction.
Ethics are part of any decent education, because the topic is part of philosophy, law practice and even communicative subjects, besides, it is the accepted norm in our society that stealing and killing are bad. This has not always and everywhere been the case, as history tells us.
Ofcourse we should be taught at schools that killing is not desirable conduct  - but this does not warrant a claim that the ten commandments are either a factual divine message, or even that they are in some unshakeable universal way morally right.

It would be nonsense to assume that running a red light could somehow be justified by a firm belief that red lights are meaningless.

The point is not that one should be free to act upon his beliefs, and to be able to justify anything on basis of those beliefs - (I have no idea where you got the idea that this is the view I have, or that is somehow implied here :]) - the point is that one should be free to choose for him/herself what to believe and what is right.

---

Well, you've virtually lost me from there on. Soon I might prevent annoyance for either or both of us by withdrawing from the discussion (ofcourse, still considering it an interesting one so far). I respect your beliefs, I just don't see any purpose in either discussing something from a narrow perspective, straying even further from the actual topic or getting all hot and bothered about an endless and timeless argument.


To exemplify:


I shall disregard my personal opinion on fearfulness for gay-pride, intolerance, street evangelism and judgementalism; there simply are laws to regard here.
To oil the cogs of society, rules must be made (the alternative would be Anarchy). These rules are not spiritual or universal or whatnot, these are simply agreements that make life bearable for a people. One such rule is the right to free thinking and free speech. '1984' is not a widely desired or accepted way to go.

If one is unable to make the distinction between universal truth and practical rule, discussion on either subject becomes very tough-going indeed. It's one of those things where I draw the line, and withdraw myself.


Your quote from Revelations is interesting, and food for one of my 'hypothetical mind-games'. As I said, I don't know the Bible back to front, so I will not get into an argument over specific quotes (unless it states something along the lines of 'And on april the fourth of the year two-thousand and five, Tabun will getst a headache like none before, and maketh no mistake!' j/k)
It is not, however, proof. Not to be harsh, but taking such a text and claiming it to describe and predict an exact happening or development is akin to taking a horoscope and claiming it to predict your day/month/life. Again, there is no problem with a firm belief in something like that, there is no hard evidence against it, but it has no place as proof in a discussion that has not even showed signs of agreement over the existance of divine influence.
One might aswell present ancient writings on the Bushido, and claim specific verses to be proof of the universal right to kill off entire villages.


Another good example of where you have lost me.. we're having a discussion about whether or not an intelligence might eventually know all, and now you're simply stating that it cannot? When were the limitations of the human brain throughout a possible eternity determined? And even if the biological frame is the end of the line for us, how can we be sure that the soul (if it exists) is equally limited? How can one 'outwit' a concept like knowledge or wisdom in the first place?

Maybe we're unclear on the definition of wisdom. My dictionary states:
1. the state of being wise.
2. an understanding of that which is true or good, together with sound judgment.
3. scholarly learning

Obviously, 1 and 3 represent practical usage of the word, and are too vague to apply here. The second meaning indicates that wisdom is all about knowing truth, having sound judgement and thus, in relation to the topic, knowing all truth there is to know. Or in short, knowing everything.
Which leaves me to wonder what you are then talking about. We have partial 'wisdom', and no way of knowing if we'll ever reach perfect 'wisdom' or not. That's exactly the question at hand :]

I've been thinking about other definitions of wisdom that would represent something that for some reason do not fall under 'knowing everything', but I'm afraid you'll have to help me out here..

This only goes to show that IQ is not a good way to measure intelligence by. Someone of high intelligence (for purposes of this discussion) should be able to contemplate broadly, ponder deeply and understand the nescessity of study. An IQ of 140 makes you intelligent like a penis of 10" makes you a good lover. The one who realizes this, is smarter than both of the persons you mention.

Your definition of wisdom changes nothing to the discussion, and proves that the statements in your previous post do nothing to propagate the argument.


These comments only go to show you are either purposefully or unwittingly refusing to see things from any other perspective than a rigidly convinced Christian one. You regard beliefs as proof and consider unbelievers to be unwise and closeminded.

I do not consider believers (of any religion) to be unwise at all, but sometimes it's hard not to consider some things as a sign of closemindedness.

I'm not even going to go near the 'why not 50 years ago?' question, aside from naming Socrates, Democritus and wondering if the inquisition was perhaps also a good thing, because it was popular in the past?

That you are not annoyed makes sense to me too - by ruling out the possibility of being wrong, one can never be in a state of doubt over something or feel unable to get a message across. Why would you need to worry about that, when the message is so clear and obvious, that 'you just need to open your eyes, think wisely' and see it?

Maybe I'm getting most annoyed, above all, by the utter inanity of the apparant idea that considering all the available options and possibilities with honesty, open mindedness and free from judgement is somehow fascist compared to the holding on to a specifc and traditional belief system with the utmost certainty, preferring to strangle all the natural processes of human thought and contemplation - perhaps even forcing it upon others through public and obligatory education.

So, I'm getting off the bus here, I see no further use in this discussion - your standpoint in this is clear to me, as is mine. I fear it is getting rather one-sided in a few ways. I refuse to let any more of my comments in this thread get bludgeoned by the blunt sword of "Something somethingness 12:34-proof". My horoscope was right about that headache, too.