sábado, 8 de janeiro de 2011


According to new studies of intelligence and education, one of the scholars who has excelled in this area is the American psychologist Howard Gardner of Harvard University. He began his research from a psychobiological perspective to examine cognitive abilities. Garner began analyzing intelligence that some people had some specific things and others did not. He may realize that each person developed a kind of intelligence for any area and, thus, he presents the human brain consists of types of logical-mathematical intelligence, linguistic-verbal, kinesthetic-bodily, visual-spatial, musical, naturalist and "Intra and Interpersonal" [1].

We can see, according to the theories of Howard Gardner that atheists suffer from a problem of intelligence. Apparently, atheists have a serious problem of logical-mathematical intelligence and visio-spatial. To clarify that when I say the problem of logical-mathematical intelligence, I'm not saying there are no good mathematical scientists or atheists, but that these have a great difficulty to understand the logic and mathematical concepts for yourself. This means that atheists are mathematicians or when there is some science that requires some mathematical reasoning, they only use the knowledge studied in a closed circle. They are unable, for example, to realize it in the universe, on a daily or reasoning out a cognitive study circle, as I will demonstrate in this text. When I speak also the problem of logical intelligence, say that atheists do not have the ability to form coherent syllogisms without a grotesque contradiction and child, as I will show too.

Perhaps this perception that led Albert Einstein to criticize atheists as Andrew Robson reports in his excellent book about Einstein that compiled texts of his letters and manuscripts, as well as texts of Stephen Hawking, Arthur C. Clarkr, Philip Glass and others:

"In fact, Einstein criticized repeatedly and wondered how atheists 'before such harmony of the cosmos there are people who say there is no God'" [2]

I want to say instead that although the text seem biased, I'm showing in the arguments because it can not be because I am presenting and arguing why such conclusions. If any atheist reading this text, it may not accept or understand exactly why suffer the logical-mathematical intelligence. However, I invite you to explore and notice something unusual in his epistemology and logic in its analysis of the world and the cosmos, if you can. At least examine with a sound rationale.

The problem of intelligence of the atheist is not noticed by now. The writers of the Bible demonstrate and teach what we can see: an atheist is not intelligent enough to perceive the logic of the cosmos and nature. Both the OT and the NT, written many years ago, come to that conclusion. In fact, God Himself reveals the problem of the atheist.

The psalmist David wrote:

Psalm 14:1 When master corner. Psalm of David The fool says in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt practice and is an abomination, since there is none that doeth good.

This conclusion was so strong that the psalmist repeated again in Psalm 53.1, since it is not surprising that the writers of the Old Testament repeat a principle so overwhelming.

The Hebrew adjective נבל (eared) David used by RA translated as "foolish" is too strong. In several passages that the Hebrew word is translated to mean "crazy, stupid." It seems madness includes a failure to realize the obvious, as can be seen in Deuteronomy 32.6-8 that God speaks to people they did not realize that the deeds of the Lord and also in Isaiah 32.4-6 God says that when the king king, the fool will understand. Therefore, the word relates to cognitive understanding.

In the NT, Paul was no less scathing. He wrote in Romans:

Romans 1:20-22 20 For the invisible things of God, even his eternal power, as well as his own divinity, have been clearly seen, since the beginning of the world, being understood from what has been made. Such men are without excuse, 21 because, they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful: but became vain in their imaginations, obscuring them is foolish heart. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools

Paul had a refined education and knew about the philosophy of Greek and Roman era. He has had several discussions with philosophers and people of all ideologies in his time. However, Paul admits that the natural man can fully realize the Creator through his works. Paul cited two attributes, at least, these men could recognize the Creator's natural: his power and his divinity. Paul says that through the medium of created things. However, for an atheist, all the complexity of the cosmos and of life is not enough to realize that there is one divine and powerful. For Paul, the invisible Creator must be perceived by the creation, especially his divinity and power, because as all the complexity of fine tuning, biological machines with functionality and high level information may have come from random processes? Only the head of an atheist, of course!

Paul says that the reasoning of those people became null. Paul uses the expression αλλεματαιωθησαν εν τοις διαλογισμοις. In this expression is the word in the dative διαλογισμος (dialogues) which means reasoning, purpose, design. That is, the word shows a profound understanding and insight in assembling evidence by reasoning. That word comes our word "dialogue". Paul says these people now have an empty argument. The Greek verb used εματαιωθησαν aorist indicative passive means "to make empty, void." Paul confirms what psalmists already said, anyone who denies the evidence of a personal God and has a powerful argument empty. Paul does not stop there, but still says that the heart of these people is pointless and obscure (v.21). The word comes from the adjective translated ασυνετος which is the addition of a prefix α (negative particle) + συνετος (smart). If nothing else, Paul says these people are in the dark. Of course Paul knew that all are spiritually dead, but he speaks specifically to people who deny the evidence of the Creator in nature, for he speaks in the verses later on those who know the law

Now let's see some of that evidence in practice:

1. The atheist and the difficulty of logical perception of the cosmos and nature

As I wrote above, the atheist has no intelligence that Gardner called the logical-mathematical, because they fail to realize this for yourself in nature.

To understand this we need to go back to the eighteenth century with one of the great philosophers and theologians of the time, William Paley. Paley wrote two books that influenced his time in a phenomenal way: Evidences of the Christianity and Natural Theology. His influence was so great that it reached Darwin himself, as he studied divinity at Cambridge. Many scholars perceive in his book "The Origin of Species" an attempt to refute what he knew of William Paley, it was widely read in his time and especially in his study of divinity.

Paley was known to his description in his book Natural Theology of a watch found in a thicket. He writes that if a forest and suddenly topasse foot on a stone, he would question how she ever got there. However, if he topasse in a watch would be totally different. He wrote:

Why is not admissible in the second case as the first? For this reason and no other: when we examine the watch, we perceive (what we do not notice the stone) that its main parts are adjusted and put together for a purpose. They are so fair and adapted to produce motion and the motion is set to point to the time of day that if the various parties had been formed in a different way than they are, like different size or placed in some other way or at any another order they are placed, then no motion would have been done by machine or anything to do justice to the use of this object ... [3]

What Paley tries to show is that someone who has a minimal intelligence would ever say that clock has got there by accident or has been by evolutionary processes. The most interesting is that when Paley wrote his book, the cell was just a protoplasm and DNA was still little known, had not electron microscopes or nanotechnology that we have today.

For Paley, intelligence requires that we recognize that you have a watchmaker behind that clock. Although it is realized that one can not know who is this watchmaker.

The comparison of the complexity of the cosmos and life with a clock because there is quite feasible in the cosmos what scientists call a fine tune, a perfect synchronism between the physical and biological laws, because the sun could not have a size smaller or larger if otherwise there would be no life, nor a distance between the earth more or less to have liquid water. Likewise, the moon would have to be the right size at the right distance, the land would need to be in a strategic place in the Milky Way so that life would be feasible because of the radiation. The slope of the land would need to be an exact position, otherwise it will be too hot summers and winters too cold for life on earth, the earth has the right size to hold the gases that sustain life as oxygen and carbon dioxide unlike the other planets. As scientists, 99% of the universe is composed of hydrogen and helium, but the land is different because it is made of heavier elements that can form elements essential for life and have a magnetic field that prevents us from harmful radiation. Besides a perfect timing in the orbit of planets revolving forming a perfect balance.

In nature there is what mathematicians call the Fibonacci sequence. This sequence was discovered by Leonardo Pisano Fibonacci known by around the year 1200 BC He discovered a sequence of numbers by adding the two previous numbers. With this pattern of numbers, can make the so-called "golden rectangle." This rectangle shape several other rectangles inside forming a spiral when it is divided with a bow and is known as "Fibonacci spiral". This spiral is found in the human body, in sunflowers, tree branches, sea stars, flower petals, shells, pineapple and in galaxies. All of these things in nature can be certain points of the diagram 1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21 mathematician. This sequence demonstrates how mathematical proof that there is a Designer behind or be a very smart behind the universe, even leading some to call the "fingerprints of the Creator."

When observing life, gives us reason to become more impressed, that is, who has logical-mathematical intelligence, because there are real biological machines with structures similar to a rotary engine outboard, for example: the bacterial flagellum and the protein complex ATP. The DNA contains within itself high level information and a code that is stored, applied and deciphered. All this done with great precision and specific functionality. That's what Michael Behe calls "irreducible complexity" in his book "Darwin's Black Box."

However, atheists do not realize this, oddly enough. To them all this precision, complexity can not have come from an intelligent mind. They fail to realize the obvious. Really are not smart enough to notice signs of intelligence in nature due to its perceived lack of logic in nature.

Atheists apologize to say that theists put God of the gaps that have no explanation, but God is placed exactly in the places that have no gaps, as it appears because of the ample evidence of intelligence. When we say that only God could have created the solar system, the gaps did not come to God, but the evidence that came to mind shows us that only an intelligent designer could have done precisely calculated and laws, theorems, information and sequences in nature that never could have the chance.

However, atheists put "time" and "science" these gaps. They, yes, leave gaps, because they do not know, they say they are giving a lot of time explaining the nature, or that science will one day explain this or that. However, conclude that something was the result of a creation is only one logical conclusion and not put off science, but rather evokes it to demonstrate the wonders of the Creator. For example, using it to William Paley's illustration: if I find a watch on the moon, I immediately conclude that someone was smart in that place. The research will only further clarify this hypothesis core logic. Polls at the clock in the laboratories of NASA will not be to discard whether there was an intelligent being, but more to clear how she got there and the circumstances of the site for that clock was there. So the excuse of the gap is more a matter of lack of intelligence.

2. The atheist and his difficulty in understanding the theoretical and philosophical

There is something funny when we see a debate between an atheist and a theist. Most of the time of the theist to the atheist is trying to show the characteristics of intelligence. I saw a debate between a theist and an atheist theist that looked like a kindergarten teacher teaching children when we perceive characteristics of intelligence or not. Therefore, several issues needed to be explained in the debates because of barrier intelligence of atheists. Conjures up the concept of information theory, have to explain that logic comes into the concept of theory and evidence. And when the atheist with this intelligence think you know the Bible, there's worse, because it needs to be taught about hermeneutics, original languages, remember about archeology, ancient manuscripts and remember that it takes an understanding of each person when it comes to the Bible.

Even worse is when high school students who come in contact through the internet with atheists in Orkut communities and are replaced by the platitudes decorated without even questioning. These just a lot of patience to discuss, because ignorance mixed with a lack of intelligence is going to extreme patience.

One of the atheists that showed this problem was the Nobel Prize winner Jose Saramago. Atheist, Saramago was the kind of atheist who questioned God in the Bible. His two books: "The Gospel According to Jesus Christ" and "Cain" demonstrate that. At first, he claims that Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene. At last, he criticizes God and blame him for what happened to Cain. However, we see very serious error of Hermeneutics in the immediate context of the passage, for example, Saramago maintains that God has not given attention to Cain, but if you read in context we can see that God calls Cain to warn him of the possible crime. The striking thing is that it uses as reference the Bible itself or absolutely nothing to prove as in the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. What could we call it? A deep problem of theoretical and philosophical insight because he used the base as he does not believe.

Yes, he used as a base because it demonstrated that God was to blame for the situation of Cain. For this, at least he would have to bear in mind that the story has some foundation. If not, he would enter an absurdity in its arguments.

To better illustrate what Saramago did, imagine what I try to show that the Big Bad Wolf from Little Red Riding Hood story from there and get angry because he ate the grandmother and tell her the bad wolf granny should have helped rather than eat it and make a book saying that the Big Bad Wolf is a coward, cursing and blaming him for the granny. Obviously, for those who have an intelligent perception, nobody will get that detail, but a lunatic, because everyone knows that the Big Bad Wolf is a fiction.

In the case of Saramago, he takes pains to see Cain inconsistency in the character of God, and that he himself is based on the text that criticizes and the law that God has revealed himself, for he speaks of "innocent children" to show that God is wrong and therefore does not exist. Indeed, only a person with low intelligence in this regard not to notice this inconsistency.

The atheist has difficulty in understanding philosophical about the beginning of everything. Scientists assume a beginning of time, space and the universe. However, atheists advocate who can not accept God as the answer to last question because it leads to another difficulty: who created it. Therefore, they arrive at the conclusion that God does not exist.

It's amazing how the atheists do not realize that this argument is childish. This is exactly the low intelligence of these. It is childish because to know the answer to something, one need not know all the answers of the response. As William Craig science would cease to exist if we consider that. If someone finds a piece of pottery designed with an unknown entry, it becomes obvious that the smart people did. However, one need not know how exactly were the authors and how they arrived there, or pottery like that came up there to reach a conclusion that this application comes from someone smart or had created a home.

There are many things that science studies and research without knowing its origin. For example, the pyramids of Egypt. All are agreed that those buildings were made by intelligent people. However, it is unclear how they brought those buildings and built so perfectly taken those and as such heavy stones to that desert. There are even people who say they were from another planet have done that before such mathematical precision and planning. One need not know the origin of an answer that will come to a logical conclusion. Likewise God is. Do not need to know whether or not it was created to reach the conclusion that a powerful and divine is behind this universe by the arguments written above.

God is the ultimate cause, as is required unless you are setting up and does not have an explanation for God. If God was created, it would be within the normal pattern of creatures and enter an absurdity, for it would end the questioning. However, if God was not created, it is outside the normal resting the creation of our mind in a beginning of all things.

To illustrate further, everyone knows that the numbers are infinite sets, let us imagine that we know the last number of the set of real numbers. If we knew that number, the numbers would be finite and the last number would no longer be an infinite number and higher. But if we do not know, the last number is still infinity and the beginning and end of all numbers of the set of real numbers becomes a different category from others. It is no accident that Jesus called "the alpha and omega." With this, Jesus was saying he was the first number and last number. The letters representing the numbers for the Greeks led Jesus to say with that, its infinity and its total difference between the Creator and creation.

Another difficulty for the atheist is to realize that God is within an epistemological circle that encompasses all the sciences and that can not compare God with Santa Claus, elves, the Elephant Pink Cap and red as the intelligence of atheists invent. You can not compare because none of these characters evoke science. For example, nobody ever wrote: "Duende, a delusion," "Santa Claus, a invention" as Dawkins wrote his bestseller "The God Delusion." Also, no one was ever called to discuss the university on "The Pink Elephant Red Cap", nor did these characters that scientists on the importance of Einstein, Francis Collins assert their viability as they did about God, while that for both it is different.

An atheist can not see it because it has no intelligence to that. So he compares God with elves, fairies and Santa Claus without taking into account such details because he does not see the obvious can not concatenate the world with mathematical logic and the thoughts that surround them.

3. The atheist and his difficulty in understanding about faith

It is difficult to realize an atheist something related to faith. He lists only authentic religion. He does not conceive that every human being has aspects of faith in his epistemology and knowability. For example, atheists who say they have no faith and do not need it, believe (that's right, believe) in theories still controversial and some even absurd. The Big Bang theory and evolution as the beginning of all biodiversity is still questioned by many scientists. Even the neo-Darwinian theory itself is questioned by many scientists not Christians as the site says www.dissentfromdarwin.org which gives a list of several scientists who sign their skepticism of Darwinism by stating:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to explain the complexity of life. A careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged [4].

If the theories of the Big Bang and evolution as the beginning of all of life are viewed with skepticism by some scientists, what remains is for atheists only faith that the evidence is true. In truth, faith, every scientist must have. Faith is precisely the ability to trust in someone or something based on some foundation and evidence. For example, all scientists start believing in some deductive hypotheses before examining the evidence to confirm or not their chances. If the evidence does not corroborate the hypothesis and the scientist is sincere and honest, he passes out if the evidence corroborating the hypothesis, he goes forward with the research.

Previously, scientists believed that proteins were responsible for the information in cells. However, when the double helix of DNA was discovered by Watson and Click, that idea has become obsolete since the structure of DNA was studied further and found that all the information of life in him and not the protein, reaching the conclusion that DNA is responsible for the information in the cell. Thus, there are several other studies that reached different conclusions when the beginning was studied. This is evidence that scientists need faith.

The Bible gives the concept of faith that way, since the author to the Hebrews to conceptualize faith uses the two words used for human rationality:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (RC)

The apostle uses the words ποστασις (hypostasis), which means foundation and ελεγχος (elenchos) means that documentary evidence. The apostle says that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This means that faith needs ποστασις plea and evidence, evidence ελεγχος.

Faith is the same for all who use it. The difference is that the Christian puts his faith in God or the Bible, the atheist or scientist puts his faith in their theories or hypotheses deductible. The atheist and the skeptic, based on evidence that they adhere (which may be incorrect or not), believe the universe came from mere chance and natural forces. However, it is very normal to not know an atheist or not accept it because it is a feature of their intelligence affected.

Faith needs both fundamentals that we can choose who to trust. Generally, when we see someone we trust the rational foundation for it. An application example of faith is that when someone seeks a specialist in certain specific area, one examines the evidence of curriculum, feedback from patients or society in general to be a patient of this. Even so, it will require faith that that doctor is not fooling with his training or if he really knows what he says he knows. The Christian faith is the same. The difference is that it is directed to a personal God or the Bible, the atheist directed to the assumptions or theories based on their naturalistic assumptions.

However, the finding of a God not of faith but of scientific and observational evidence. Faith comes when we accept who is this God and how he created all things with the power of his word, because we must believe in the Bible, however, the conclusion that there is a God is as rational as the conclusion that the Rosetta Stone was written by an intelligent mind.

Richard Dawkins in an interview in the film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" makes claims that confirms everything I have written and what the Bible says about atheists. Dawkins acknowledges that the study of biochemistry and molecular biology lead to a designer of superior intelligence. However, he points out in a total act of faith to be from another place in the universe. He said:

It may be that it will conclude as follows: It may be that at some point in the early days, somewhere in the universe has evolved a civilization for a Darwinian process to a high level of technology and has designed a way of life that has sown, perhaps on this planet. Now, this possibility is an intriguing possibility and think it is possible to obtain any evidence for it if you look at the details, details of biochemistry, molecular biology, we can find some kind of signature designer and that designer might be a higher intelligence of another place in the universe, but that higher intelligence would itself have arisen by some process ultimately explainable [5]

Dawkins does not fail to recognize, to some extent at least, that theists are correct in concluding on the evidence before a Designer of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry and confirms, therefore, that this conclusion is perfectly logical and verifiable.

So Dawkins, this interview confirms its logical intelligence problem, theoretically and on the perception of faith. He can not think like a being from another planet who does not know how he came, God can be the author of the universe and life that we do not know about the beginning. He also did not realize that came in open contradiction to recognize the possibility of a designer in the land, even though he claims that could have come from another planet. On faith because he did not realize that he uses constantly faith at the highest level, but does not admit it.


Atheists prefer undo what man holds most important - rationality. Atheists think about things in a closed form, only conclusions that lead them to think within a discernibility canned. When it requires them to think outside of that circle, they can not.

The problem of intelligence of atheists is related to these main difficulties: logical perception of the cosmos and nature, difficult theoretical and philosophical insight and perception about faith. These three levels of awareness hampering the ability to recognize an intelligent mind behind the cosmos, even if they have countless arguments.

Therefore, I wish that this text reach those who are losing their sense of awareness in these areas, since many adolescents and university students have left their common sense by saying that a more foolish man has said, "God does not exist." Or maybe atheists refuse to accept this evidence just because they're protecting for fear of slamming at one of the basic conclusions - God exists. In this case, further confirms the difficulty of thinking of atheists.
[1] Gardner, Howard. The theory of multiple intelligences. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1994.
[2] Andrew Robinson. Einstein: 100 years of relativity theory. New York: Elsevier, 2005, p. 186.
[3] Paley, William. Natural Theology. Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1852, p. 5-6.
[4] http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
[5] Richard Dawkins in an interview in the film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

2 comentários:

  1. Yeah. I'm dumb and afraid. That's why I don't believe in god. "This is not offensive, the problem is that you're just too dumb to understand".

  2. There's a difference: I proved that you are an dumb for being an atheist, you do not. So one more reason for you being an idiot