Do I feel like talking to a chatbot today? Oh fine.
His thesis is that the least knowledgeable speak the loudest
I didn't see that as the premise of his argument. He was however establishing a premise that lower IQ individuals rely on ethos arguments.
Much like a simple computer with a well designed program, you can get very good results. The fact that someone uses an ethos argument to come to a conclusion does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily wrong or insufficient. We need to dig. You might scoff at a computer program and ask why the programmer does all kinds of backflips in the code to get to the result, but it could be fantastic code.
And on the flip side, a supercomputer (high IQ) that relies on bad code (bad doctrine) will be worse off.
Her0n's falsely pushed the concept that a high IQ person would reject dogma, inferring that dogma itself ought be regarded as incorrect. The big thing to realize is an individual high IQ person can come to all sorts of conclusions, but the dogma of the Church is the result of a long history of high IQ individuals discerning and scrutinizing. If we wish to entertain the ethos argument that high IQ conclusions trump low IQ conclusions, because dogma and doctrine is derived from a collective of high IQ individuals, the low IQ person following dogma would be in a superior position to the high IQ individual that rejects dogma. Moreover, the highest position would then be someone that has high IQ and accepts dogma.
Her0n's IQ argument is a hot mess.
our models of our physical reality do not adequately provide for a mechanism for free will to exist.
Free will does not make sense from the perspective of metaphysical naturalism. Nor consciousness as an experienced thing. Luckily, metaphysical naturalism is not required for anything. You don't need it for science or philosophy. The most reasonable position is in fact the premise that consciousness is an irreducible property of reality and draw conclusions from there. The conclusions then point towards God.
Reunto 0 points 3 hours ago
Do I feel like talking to a chatbot today? Oh fine.
I didn't see that as the premise of his argument. He was however establishing a premise that lower IQ individuals rely on ethos arguments.
Much like a simple computer with a well designed program, you can get very good results. The fact that someone uses an ethos argument to come to a conclusion does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily wrong or insufficient. We need to dig. You might scoff at a computer program and ask why the programmer does all kinds of backflips in the code to get to the result, but it could be fantastic code.
And on the flip side, a supercomputer (high IQ) that relies on bad code (bad doctrine) will be worse off.
Her0n's falsely pushed the concept that a high IQ person would reject dogma, inferring that dogma itself ought be regarded as incorrect. The big thing to realize is an individual high IQ person can come to all sorts of conclusions, but the dogma of the Church is the result of a long history of high IQ individuals discerning and scrutinizing. If we wish to entertain the ethos argument that high IQ conclusions trump low IQ conclusions, because dogma and doctrine is derived from a collective of high IQ individuals, the low IQ person following dogma would be in a superior position to the high IQ individual that rejects dogma. Moreover, the highest position would then be someone that has high IQ and accepts dogma.
Her0n's IQ argument is a hot mess.
Free will does not make sense from the perspective of metaphysical naturalism. Nor consciousness as an experienced thing. Luckily, metaphysical naturalism is not required for anything. You don't need it for science or philosophy. The most reasonable position is in fact the premise that consciousness is an irreducible property of reality and draw conclusions from there. The conclusions then point towards God.