Skip to content

Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on God, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Religion: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (6)







Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 29.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (24)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain:

Individual Publication Date: March 15, 2022

Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2022

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 6,487

ISSN 2369-6885


Tor Arne Jørgensen is a member of 50+ high IQ societies, including World Genius Directory, NOUS High IQ Society, 6N High IQ Society just to name a few. He has several IQ scores above 160+ sd15 among high range tests like Gift/Gene Verbal, Gift/Gene Numerical of Iakovos Koukas and Lexiq of Soulios. Tor Arne was also in 2019, nominated for the World Genius Directory 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe. He is the only Norwegian to ever have achieved this honor. He has also been a contributor to the Genius Journal Logicon, in addition to being the creater of, where he is the designer of now eleven HR-tests of both verbal/numerical variant. His further interests are related to intelligence, creativity, education developing regarding gifted students. Tor Arne has an bachelor`s degree in history and a degree in Practical education, he works as a teacher within the following subjects: History, Religion, and Social Studies. He discusses: one of the more favourite geniuses; an enigmatic and a puzzling character; the source of the myth as an artist first rather than a natural philosopher and engineer; noteworthy quirks of behaviour and personal taste; trends; heretical minds; religion; his lack of religion; gods make the most sense; gods make the least sense; religious denomination within a religion, seems the most reasonable, plausible, and balanced; a belief in God; faith justified; faith not justified; the terms “faith” and “religion” conflated; despised throughout the world; the best argument for God; the best argument against God; where one is born, for the most part, determine, largely, one’s belief in a particular religion rather than another; the obsession of religion with women’s bodies; religions make only or mostly men leaders; science and religion; the greatest genius in history; the good of religion; the nature of religious community; an interview with a pastor; long chats with religious community leaders; the different major world religions; demographic advantage for the rest of the 21st century; the Norwegian take on religion and religious community; thoughts on the future of religious evolution; evolution via natural selection such a terrible bane for religious ideology; and, Intelligence Design proponents and Creationists.

Keywords: genius, intelligence, Leonardo Da Vinci, Tor Arne Jørgensen.

 Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Leonardo Da Vinci: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (6)

*Please see the references, footnotes, and citations, after the interview, respectively.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Leonardo Da Vinci, in experience of interviewing a decent number of individuals of the high-IQ communities, is consistently ranked among the favourite geniuses of the communities. He seems to have made a deep impression on them. Which raises some questions for yourself, as you’re a growing member of these communities, as a member of more than 50 high-IQ societies, is Da Vinci one of the more favourite geniuses in history for you?

Tor Arne Jørgensen[1],[2]*: The answers present it selves with is resounding yes, by the resolute effort he made to meet his nascent and at most pure sense of curiosity about how the world around him worked. That his legacy perceived as something very distinctive and exceptional becomes for me a desire to learn more about the life of this very special man. Will also add to the fact of carrying the seal even with a promoted awe at its way of self being, whereby expressions of one’s inherent disposition are not obscured, but in fact are parade through the streets of medieval Florence with great sense of pride in a time when narrow-minded prejudices, persecutions further by several acts of terrorism due to church and their tunnel vision views of colorful diversity among men.

The Church’s normal reply in most cases in accordance with their own views as to uphold their interpretation of “high moral standard”, was to deploy its league of death dealers to deliver the lords message of righteousness to the unholiest of men. The defiance shown by Leonardo and the likes of him, the fearlessness, the resistance, and unwavering courage at a time when difference was not accepted back then and still replies today is nothing short of impressive, all credit due to Leonardo the character, the man and what he stood for and believed in, is a designation of the highest dignity even overshadowed by its inherent and shining genius, a true persona indeed. This is for me perhaps the most admirable trait and legacy of Leonardo to be honor through the ages.

Jacobsen: Famously, Da Vinci is seen as an enigmatic and a puzzling character, though recognized through inventions and artistic works. One myth to bust is the fact of having less interest in art and more intrigue in – what is now called – science and technology. The art was a series of techniques developed to study geography, anatomy, flight, and the like. What seems like the purpose of this technique for Da Vinci, personally?

Jørgensen: Leonardo’s notes are based on what is to be found in information, made in the sense of creating an accepted overview of his surroundings in the eternal search to improve his horizons of understanding presented in his paintings and more … these notes are massive and noted in many of his sketchbooks, better known as zibaldone. More than 7,200 pages have been found, but it is believed to be at least double that. The notes that Leonardo made are referred to as; ” the most astonishing testament to the powers of human observation and imagination ever set down on paper.”

Leonardo’s codex collections are varied, impressive, and diverse in its fullest sense. His accumulation of notes was further established, it was a kind of “work in progress”, whereas changing or improvement of previous thought understanding, were improved upon on or deviated from all together, this done in order of being able to fixate on a more innovative approach to be used as a more practical form of understanding. He paved the way as to pass on further the conceptual understanding of our pictorial views, this was due to his lack of mathematical understanding, as Leonardo saw pattern formations to a much greater degree than through understanding of fundamental perceptions through mathematical calculations.

The same can be said about his understanding of written language of Latin, which he also did not achieve to the extent he himself wanted. Seeing patterns in all movements, which one can add that he studied people’s approach, conversation with each other, those of normal hearing and the hearing impaired, namely the deaf, Leonardo who found it extra exciting to observe their sign language, and guidance of understanding each other’s conversational appearances. That to be surprised to such an extent to give oneself completely to the elements surrounding him to see into what I experience as the future perlatives, as we back then and still now today allow ourselves to be amazed at his innovative techniques. We must be able to study, learn, admire, seek, and explore what is facilitated by nature and her fundamentals, then and only then can one truly discover one’s own preconception believes of the wondering surroundings and precise optimal perception of the known universe.

Jacobsen: What seems like the source of the myth as an artist first rather than a natural philosopher and engineer?

Jørgensen: As for the source of his works, it probably lies in the fact that he defended with great effort on his part what it meant to create a masterpiece. Where color, shading, use of light to create contrasts, and removal of lines used to create the outline by and for the contours, also by incorporation of so many different elements from sculptural constructs, scientific discoveries in addition of the geometric figurations of mathematics to create spatial obscurities. Leonardo mentions in several texts that art moves across so many more layers than mathematical calculations will allowed for compilation with regards to geometrical movements, and or sculptural constructs. Fractural summarized by so many more considerations are needed in order of producing a masterpiece, then any scientific endeavor would ever portray, nor any calculating terms against a preconception of universal laws.

Leonardo and his obsession with experimenting to better understand the world around him was motivated by being able to express himself in a way that could last for posterity and present himself in the everlasting spotlight in his quest for world fame.

The fact that painting at that time was not seen as something that would necessarily secure you money and fame, one had to shift focus in the pursuit of easier income by weapon encroachments for a more prosperous living environment, as an eternal tangle of frills with a clear goal. Will finally point out that Leonardo was not known for signing his works, he spent a lot of time on his artworks, and most were not completed. If then the search for fame was so great, why not make yourself known for posterity by signing your art. Or was that exactly what he did, when he drew himself into most of his compositions, perhaps some of the most famous ones, but left his true identity out…

Jacobsen: He wore purple tunics, wrote left-handed, wrote backwards, and may have been either asexual or homosexual, or pansexual or queer, hung out with mostly men and had a trusted young male friend, Salai. What seems like some other noteworthy quirks of behaviour and personal taste of him to you?

Jørgensen: Firstly, some info about the boy Gian Giacomo Caprotti or as he was referred to by Leonardo as Salai or “Little Devil.” Salai in this case came to Leonardo when he was about 10 years old, Leonardo at the time was about 38 years of age, the event took place in July 22, 1490. The relationship that was then to unfold moved over from being seen as firstly of a student, or apprentice, but this is mostly wrong.

The boy started as an assistant at first then later a companion, and eventually a lover at some point in time later on. Now to Leonardo and his other quirks, or extremities if one can call it that.

He wrote down everything he experienced in notebooks, it is mentioned in several texts that he had a pocket notebook with him that was small enough not to be a nuisance, this was used to write down what he experienced of the local community around him, he could bring home with him random people in order to observe them in normal conversations, whereupon there characteristics of their distinctive features appear in a humorous way which could then later be used as sketch drawings where humor, anger, and thoughtfulness was to be expressed. The way forward to create vivid moments, which can be equated today with taking pictures, where the 3-D effect is produced, every detail is recreated and put in its proper element even in its heyday, to make the image production so accurate as possible, was for Leonardo absolutely crucial, fueled by impression of manic behavior in his search of perfection.

Furthermore, his humor was widely acclaimed through his theatrical spectacles and promiscuous inventions in good company with those around him. There are also his slightly macabre aspects of dissecting dead people and various animals to better understand the human and animal anatomy in detail, this paved the way for groundbreaking work within anatomical knowledge, that is in some way still used today.  This of course done so he better could depict his artwork more vividly, to better preform through creative artwork that seemed more alive, more lifelike.

Jacobsen: Some take some quotes out of a larger context of the views of Da Vinci, as if a religious person. He may have had – and seemed to have – deep naturalistically spiritual sentiments, moral convictions, and spelled out personal opinions about God and the soul in paragraphs. He was deeply doubtful of either. Similarly with another character in the history of times before intelligence measurement, William James Sidis, he was clear about personal atheism. These aren’t the majority of the opinions but stand out because of the oppressive circumstances or general views of the laity and the societal hierarchs of their times. Even Goethe may have went through spiritual and other circumstances, he, eventually, ended, more or less, what seemed like an atheist. Einstein considered the biblical texts “pretty childish.” These are the typical views one would gather from the world of theological debate without simply looking at the words rather than what people say about the words, the interpretations. Do you see these trends, too?

Jørgensen: Will in this subtask, if one can call it that, by fortify myself further in the same track to ensure a unifying preconception of the main character (Leonardo) life and work. If one is then going to turn towards the more religious aspect, and what known statures and thereby implications this had on Leonardo’s life and the work that he did, then one must take the following considerations, which in turn can be presented in a questioning range of possibilities, whereas critical conceptualities and fortified truths may crumble if even just a bit, and will probably appear at best as; (speculative observations bordering on heresy towards Christianity’s written truths and religious belief systems).

When one then goes ahead with this task and by that presents what concernments from what one knows in the degree of information is hereby then interpreted, and furthermore is then firstly and foremost to illuminate the following scale view of Leonardo and the supreme position of the Catholic Church according to homosexuality sat era. The era decreed is traced back to the Middle Ages, just before Leonardo returned from Milan to Florence in the late 15th century, I will now refer to a text excerpt from world renowned author Walter Isaacson and his bestseller book about Leonardo Da Vinci the following quote is marked as follows: “In 1494 a radical friar named Girolamo Savonarola had led a religious rebellion against the ruling Medici and instated a fundamentalist regime that imposed strict new laws against homosexuality, sodomy, and adultery.” (Walter Isaacson, Leonardo Da Vinci, p.300).

Now it should be said that a radical fundamentalist does not define the statutes of the Catholic Church per se, but the angles towards this type of “deviate» orientation are clearly consolidated in the Bible, which apply still to this day as well. I would then like to point out that the “elephant” in the room by reference to Leonardo’s orientation, his appearance, as he does not in any way try hide his orientation in the least either in characteristics, or general clothing style, nor who he appeared with point in term to Salai. Is it conceivable that Leonardo’s personal experience of what the church’s general attitude towards homosexuality did not go completely unnoticed? We must not forget Leonardo and his Loki prominent stature, and immense brilliant mind far ahead of his own time, probably the clear dominant intellect in the Western hemisphere at that time. The ecclesiastical council did not quite see from what I can understand, what Leonardo really brought forward to the table as to various works commissioned by the church. It is possible that the interpretation missed completely or at least partial based on the actual intention ambiguity visualized by beautiful and whimsical brushstrokes by the master artist himself.

That the church fathers interpreted the works of Leonardo as an agreed tribute to the biblical characters, for the intended purpose is to me almost a bit on the ridiculous side, no offence intended. With all due respect to the religious believers back then and through the ages, one will imagine that one’s own inherent motions and emotions would at some point materialize via some form of personal confliction through their expressional art in many cases across their professional commitments. I must extract a clear case according to the following painting by Leonardo. Virgin on the Rocks. Two versions were made, the first version which hangs today in the art museum in the Louvre Paris and the second version which hangs in London. The commissioning of the work was done as many know by the Confraternity of the Immaculate Conception.

If one then looks at the picture that hangs on the Louvre, ie the first version that was not completely accepted as a commissioned work, and had to be redone and what almost imposes itself on the testimonies studied, then one sees a prominent phallus, right behind the head of a Virgin Mary. This center stone is clearly and prominently shaped like what is just mentioned. In this case, I tried a small experiment when I asked my class as I I am a teacher of religion about the following artwork: “What do you see in this painting?” The answer that came back was 90% of the 10th grade pupils unanimously agreed with, and without me pointing out the obvious, that; the picture had an erotic twist clearly presented. So, it was concluded that yes, a rock formation of a major phallus was clearly visible in the painting. The question was asked again among my personal friends and colleges, and the same answer came back again. Also, there are several more cases where the artist indulges in their humorously funny elements at the expense of the blindness of the believers.

What then is meant by this, in a clear case about John the Baptist that was one of Leonardo’s most admirable figurants, the love he was shown in Leonardo’s paintings was not equated with Jesus nor Mary Magdalene This is due to the disagreements between John the Baptist and Jesus and more… So, it does not matter. Short Review, John the Baptist is said to have been arrested and later killed by losing his head, at the behest of King Herod. I must also add that Leonardo’s ultimate wish was to become famous beyond national borders at any cost. If one then looks further at the Shroud of Turin and the time around the 13th century, whereby the world’s most likely first photograph was taken, and where the separation of the head and body emerges clearly, with reference to the fate of John the Baptist with his beheading.

This image is supposed to be Jesus’ shroud in the aftermath of the well-known crucifixion, but the height of the cloth itself is measured at over 2 meters, which would then have made Jesus the foremost giant of all time, but which mysteriously does not appear in any biblical texts. Something that would of course have been noticed had that been the factual case. No, what is the most likely being displayed is not the body of our savior, but rather that of Leonardo himself. What I take for granted from what one sees and reads inn various written works is that Leonardo has managed to fool the whole world with his absolute masterpiece to portray himself as Jesus through ways of ecclesiastical statues, paintings and so on, thus secure eternal fame.

As he liked to paint himself into his own artworks, he visualizes him selves through his sketches and paintings as form of young, old, male, and female version. Will then finally point out that the most famous painting of all time the Mona Lisa, is probable self-portrait of a female expressive Leonardo, same as in the drawing of the Vitruvian Man in full scale. The desire to secure total fame for all eternity is in my opinion clearly accomplished, and I might add brilliantly executed, all credit to you Leonardo for your achievements and your contributions to the world.

Jacobsen: We see similar heretical minds considered singular-ish in their own eras. Those who would not be found throwing rocks at a wall, as in the Great Jamara; a wall representing Satan and intended as a practice to remind believers of the Devil’s efforts and to prevent believers from being led astray. Quote-mining is often done by individuals preaching for their interpretation of a sacred scripture. However, the opposite can be done, as suggested above. Hypatia said, “ All formal dogmatic religions are fallacious and must never be accepted by self-respecting persons as final.” Also, “Fables should be taught as fables, myths as myths, and miracles as poetic fantasies. To teach superstitions as truths is a most terrible thing. The child mind accepts and believes them, and only through great pain and perhaps tragedy can he be in after years relieved of them.” During a trial, it is reported that Bill Sidis was an atheist and did not – hilariously stated – believe in the “Big Boss of the Christians.” Goethe, by 1931, seemed highly skeptical of the supernatural or faith-based claims, stating, “I have found no confession of faith to which I could ally myself without reservation.” Da Vinci stated, repeatedly, similar sentiments, “When the followers and reciters of the works of others are compared to those who are inventors and interpreters between Nature and man, it is as though they are non-existent mirror images of some original. Given that it is only by chance that we are invested with the human form, I might think of them as being a herd of animals.” Again, “Along with the scholars, they despise the mathematical sciences, which are the only true sources of information about those things which they claim to know so much about. Instead, they talk about miracles and write about things that nobody could ever know, things that cannot be proven by any evidence in nature.” Once more, “Wherever there is no true science and no certainty of knowledge, there will be conflicting speculations and quarrels. However, whenever things are proven by scientific demonstration and known for certain, then all quarreling will cease. And if controversy should ever arise again, then our first conclusions must have been questionable.” Finally, “It seems to me that all studies are vain and full of errors unless they are based on experience and can be tested by experiment, in other words, they can be demonstrated to our senses. For if we are doubtful of what our senses perceive then how much more doubtful should we be of things that our senses cannot perceive, like the nature of God and the soul and other such things over which there are endless disputes and controversies.” So, these ideas of quote-mining seem silly, in the end, to me, and more indicative of the reasoning given, at times, by profound intellects, more than a proof, evidence, or neither, of some deity. What do you make of these particular cases listed above?

Jørgensen: One can in most cases argue against prudence as to the incomprehensible notion of content presented, where adaptation of that content should be place in order to create a more meaningful utterances for the neglected notion that is being formatted. We cannot forget that the origin must be consolidated in its natural environment, where tested through scientific explanations, cannot be taken out of its legitimate context. A mixed outcome to secure their beliefs neither -nor from must be confirmed fortitude, on this I agree of what emerges from scientific approaches in favor of their religious alter egos.

Jacobsen: What is religion to you? How do you teach this to school children?

Jørgensen: How to answer something that will not be swallowed up, is also not understood for the purpose for which it is intended. I tend to find that my own experience of what religion is or means to me, can hardly be explained in the context of not being experienced as an incantation of consideration for someone other than the creation itself.

One way I experience religion is to engage by seeking something beyond oneself in one sense or another, which one can then leave to be redeemed from one’s sins in whatever fundaments of time this may or may not have arisen, thus dictated against the texts there has its origin in a somewhat sinful state. Or perhaps look inward at oneself, where one’s own strength, creation, discovery of inner spirits, whereby one works to accept what can be experienced as load-bearing foundations for creative structures beyond. I prefer the latter, as the desired qualities which are then best sought are answered by searching inwardly towards one’s exalted spiritual status, as these have a self-observed quality in being more easily fulfilled in those for accusations whereas conceivable mundane.

To the other share questions about teaching students about the true nature and thereof characteristics by fourth fundamentals through personal experienced religion. Can it be answered more pruned than that of the historical element within the religious regime, that is what triggers my intentions.

What is then created by personal enthusiasm in my religion classes is the students’ reflective abilities of and about what is met by informants through teaching situational settings. But it should be said that the principle of neutrality of pure instructive structure where one’s own experiences should not be turned against a subject one’s will, has thus become a burden that is sometimes too heavy to bear.

Jacobsen: Are you religious? If so, in what sense? Or if not, why not?

Jørgensen: If one can describe oneself as a bearing force that cannot be defined, but which in a way can be worshiped in the hope of having their prayers answered in a very different sense, then the answer is yes, more so than that an abstract spiritual unity in the state of fulfilled ideological from shekels, whereby the outcome of prayer is as always absent with its presence in its all-state. No, I would rather seek towards inherent qualitative value where one can get a reply and receive some kind of factual sign, rather this then the alternative…

Jacobsen: What gods make the most sense to you?

Jørgensen: No God creates a sensible mindset in me, as one can rather say by which inherent identity may seem most likely to lean towards an abstract reason-based unity. The search from within is for me what seems to create correction towards a greater spectrum of truth than a sorry entanglement of spiritual eventualities.

Jacobsen: What gods make the least sense to you?

Jørgensen: Every worship of these false idols is to me a fallacy by their mere absent of tangible essence.

Jacobsen: What religion, in fact religious denomination within a religion, seems the most reasonable, plausible, and balanced to you?

Jørgensen: Which denominations that to me seems like the most likely balanced or probable today is probably none. The fact that religion-based thinking should be founded, where we should all submit all of our humanly faith over to a larger autonomous being, is for me by the very definition wrong. The only thing that can be said to have a touch of balanced intelligibility is what was practiced by tribal societies before mainly, whereby the earthly distributions and their naturally established anchors, formed the fundamental basis in most cases of worshiping.

Jacobsen: Some argue for a need for a belief in God. Others argue for a psychological propensity for the creation of many gods, as in animistic gods. Do these claims seem evidenced to you, reasonable to you?

Jørgensen: Thinking that for most people, seeking beyond themselves and leaving their intentions to a type of false idol, where they can seek understanding, awe, comfort, and security becomes quite clear to me. We live in a chaotic society. The question of “are alone in the universe”, what is the true basis for our existence? Why are we, what is our purpose I life, etc. …? This loneliness or lack of understanding for us being created, can easily be applied to the fact that we are specially chosen to serve some tasks given to us by a higher benign being, as I see it, the obvious underlying intent of eternal emotional slavery in one sense or another. What is then more understandable than searching beyond what nature has assumed, where our understanding ends, and we of course seek towards the supernatural realm in the eternal search for an account of one’s own existence, a final answer to the all-consuming question of WHY?

Jacobsen: When is faith justified?

Jørgensen: Faith depends on seeking comfort when there is no comfort to be found, I choose to find comfort not to lift one’s own values ​​before a divine figure, but for oneself. To stand to look at oneself in the mirror and find one’s values ​​and see that this is good. That your inherently inviolable values ​​make you proud of yourself and your actions, they are both a reflection of the inherent transcending being and are justified as such.

Jacobsen: When is faith not justified?

Jørgensen: Now a fort can seem harsh against a huge ecclesiastical movement. “Faith can move mountains”, as the saying goes. Further that faith will prevail in the end is for me in these times of war in Europe and has been displayed up through the ages across the globe, that considering all the suffering that mankind has experienced, for me the belief in an almighty good God, whereby a single intervention from the Almighty would have stopped all the evil that takes place.

The fact that God’s will happens for a reason, such as the fact that, if something good happens, it is a miracle through the will of the almighty God, but if something terrible happens, then God works in mysterious ways. To me, the term of a benign Almighty God, in which we should all praise by his mere kindness to all mankind. His goodness is portrayed regardless. In the film End of days from 1999, where it is said by the antichrist played by Gabriel Byrne to the retired policeman Jericho played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, that “God had a fantastic PR agent”, I must reveal that I agree with what was presented here in his statement. So, to conclude I will say, that for me faith is in most cases is not justified in any sense.

Jacobsen: Why are the terms “faith” and “religion” conflated?

Jørgensen: To think of faith and religion as two polarized entities in which a natural bond does not exist, falls on its own unreasonableness. This will not come as a shock to the most people, where one follows the other, or rather the one cannot exist without the other, they exist in an addictive relationship, like some similar notion of Yin and Yang.

Jacobsen: Everyone has a right to freedom of belief, expression, and religion. However, not all are treated equally. Why are Muslims and, particularly atheists, so despised throughout the world? I assume the reasons are both similar at some points and dissimilar at others.

Jørgensen: Going against generally accepted norms is probably always seen as disgraceful, if one looks back in time, when people who opposed the ecclesiastical communities, or as Leonardo Da Vinci had a different idea of ​​the dogmatic foundations of the time, where persecutions were carried out to a great extent. Creates emotions even today, where ridicule, expulsion, inflicting shame, and intimidation propaganda such as “you will end up in hell if you do not turn towards God, even in today’s society are very real factor of retribution.

This forms much of the basis for not daring to- speak out, though it should be said that we are now experiencing a greater acceptance of the expression of different opinions, where much of the dogmatic returns are not as powerful as before, at least not executive in their practice to the same degree as now. You can actually survive after presenting your counter-perceptions towards the church, and not be burned at the stake or worse …

Jacobsen: What seems like the best argument for God?

Jørgensen: Big brother syndrome, or a fatherly figure that will take care of you in some way. This abstract being is for many an anchor point that gives the majority of people around the world a purpose in life, someone to confine in, to seek shelter in, a kind of safe haven.

Jacobsen: What seems like the best argument against God?

Jørgensen: In short, believe in your own powers, trust yourself, trust that you are born without sin, and that you are born perfect as nature intended. You are strong as a self-governing being, you do not need to seek outwardly to some kind of greater entity for acceptance, or approval, you are born with these qualities. Believe in yourself, and thus pray to yourself, only then will great things happen as you would like them to.

Jacobsen: Why does where one is born, for the most part, determine, largely, one’s belief in a particular religion rather than another?

Jørgensen: In short, the social structures determine which way the religious compass directs us.

Jacobsen: What is the obsession of religion with women’s bodies?

Jørgensen: What is described in what a woman’s body is, Jesus is portrayed as thin and muscular, but the woman here in this case is portrayed as a little fat, where gluttony has its distinct origin. Otherwise, in more general terms, the woman is seen as the driving force, where innocence and piety have clearly emerged.

Jacobsen: Why do most religions make only or mostly men leaders?

Jørgensen: Reasoned in the beginning with the distinction that was put out by Saint Peter him selves against the potential and actual heir Mary Magdalene or rather “Apostle of apostles”. The feud between her and Saint Peter is recorded and fortified in the eternal holy texts, where Jesus himself had to protect Mary from Peter’s wrath. Had the religious outcome been reversed as to gender, where Mary was selected as the natural choice to pass on the gospel of Jesus, then the male-dominated expression would probably have been completely different. High-level politics has created the religious layer that has been accepted as right and proper in everyone’s eyes, but should this be taken as a actual fact or not, that may be up for a serious debate on what gender was the rightful successor in passing on the gospel to all mankind.

Jacobsen: Are science and religion, ultimately, irreconcilable or reconcilable, e.g., via their epistemologies and derived ontologies?

Jørgensen: Leaning against the scientific justifications, where reality is clearly rooted in both the epistemological and the ontological origins, this cannot be said to the same degree for me, as my views of concern regarding the counterpart of religious and its reason for justification.

Jacobsen: Who do you regard as the greatest genius in history?

Jørgensen: A difficult choice to make, by the allusion that several candidates can easily be labeled as the world’s changing individuals, were influential qualities towards a common good are accelerated in the name of development. Since one can probably here in this round lead in the direction of what has been described here as a clear candidate, where the ability to see solution proposals not justified until five hundred years into the future in several cases, can probably and thus easily be presented here in perhaps the greatest prodigy that the world has ever seen by the amazing talents of the one and only Leonardo Da Vinci.

Jacobsen: What is the good of religion? I mean “the good” as in the Good, the positive, the upbeat, the constructive, and so on.

Jorgensen: Religious communities’ main purpose as I see it, is by gathering people from all walks of life in a shared form of communion. They get an experience of sharing something very special together. It forms the basis for affiliation, a sense of belonging without the consequences of social division, regarding the working, middle and nobility classes. Everyone has a common understanding of togetherness. This is probably as much as I can bear to muster up of positivity towards the religious community.

Jacobsen: What is the nature of religious community?

Jorgensen: As I see it, separation, from the rest, a them and us, them who are looked upon as the chosen ones that will be allowed to enter paradise through salvation by the lord all mighty, and we the rest also recognized as the enlighten ones, those who are dammed for our heretical opinions for all time where the next stop is simply put, purgatory and then hell.

Jacobsen: I recall an interview with a pastor a few years ago. He brought to mind something about the nature of a church, or any place of worship, e.g., mosque, synagogue, temple, cathedral, etc. It’s not an empty volume. It’s an idea. It’s a place in which communally recognized dogmas are renewed, reinvigorated, and brought together under a common ideological framework. Often, superstitious, illogical, anti-scientific, and nonsensical, but, in a way; a certain nobility to the entire endeavour – something with grandeur, while sweet and reassuring: a comfort. Do you find the same or different, or similar?

Jorgensen: For those concerned, and by that, I mean those who finds a need for affirmation of the self through recognition, togetherness, understanding, comfort, and assurance that their imprint in this world is affirmed and further considered by the spiritual world as a sure one-way ticket into the hinterland. Furthermore, my impression is, well, a hesitant affirmation, furthered by the proviso of common denominators.

Jacobsen: Have you ever had long chats with religious community leaders?

Jorgensen: During my time as a student of religious history, and with my didactic specialization also within religion. I did meet many Christians that had a special personified relationship towards their religious beliefs and debated whether or not their foundations within their faith could be justified beyond what is referred to in various sacred texts. Duly intended as to how they came into their strong religious beliefs, and what they saw as the most fundamental reason for their personal inclinations towards their belief system. Furthermore, what do they think about scientific truths. Their reply was as ever unified notion of; that science has only so far confirmed what the Bible has always stated and will always state with reference to its factualizing texts about the universe and all its content etc.

Jacobsen: How do the different major world religions build community?

Jorgensen: There are many variations here, but requiting is done manly through different medium, religious gatherings, among other things. Furthermore, emphasis is placed on, as mentioned earlier, a “them and us”, where a promise of eternal life is promoted, in short, a sure way to paradise. This is just some of what is being done in order to requite new members to their distinct religious beliefs.

Jacobsen: What world religions seem to have the demographic advantage for the rest of the 21st century?

Jorgensen: Geographically, based on the standards that have carried the religious imprint that we are left with today, I see no religious section that has a clear advantage. The changes that may or may not come by way of demographic bliss will thus have the intended alteration, based solely through means of assimilation, based on the pragmatic rule. This is absolutely crucial for the religious imprints of the future.

In sum, the understanding of the dominant religious dogmas of the future will be incontrovertible to which religious directions that will have the most distinctive and thus effective control over its followers.

Jacobsen: What is the Norwegian take on religion and religious community?

Jorgensen: Stable downward trend, where more and more people see the real underlying intentions that we have been taught to follow blindly through fear of eternal damnation promoted by the church’s friendly nature or now more precisely its total absence of that claimed notion of righteous friendliness.

Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the future of religious evolution?

Jorgensen: The religious layer will in the long run diminish, or change into an alternative form, it has always had, since the time when the first humans fortified themselves to the earthly elements, or through religious sacrifice in order to appease the higher powers, by human sacrifice or animal sacrifice. Or as in later times whereupon one exalted oneself to the status of God-King like the pharaohs of old. As long as there are people on earth, religion will exist, but as mentioned, it will probably be diluted in the long run.

Jacobsen: Speaking of, why is evolution via natural selection such a terrible bane for religious ideology?

Jorgensen: Reason being is relatively simple, where the genesis narrative in the beginning of the Bible, so to speak, appears as pure fabrication, against its counterpart relation to what is factualized according to Darwinist mindset. That is, what can factually be proven scientifically. The fact that our total existence does not exceed more than 6000+ years, is to me unfathomable, considering the mountain of evidence that indicates the complete opposite. In sum, the whole biblical fact notion would then be inevitably reduced to nothing more than pure nonsense, and possible resulting in a total collapse of all structural foundations on a global scale.

Jacobsen: Why are Intelligent Design proponents and Creationist so hell bent against it?

Jorgensen: As referred to above, the Bible for one loses all credibility, which in turn can lead to a total collapse regarding the ecclesiastical commonwealth. The religious conglomerates are not interested in losing their mighty and clammy hands over their blind subjects, where high politics governed through lust for power and wealth are at stake. The question is how much longer can this misleading policy be allowed to continue before the world finally wakes up?!


[1] Tor Arne Jørgensen is a member of 50+ high IQ societies.

[2] Individual Publication Date: March 15, 2022:; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2022:

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.


American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Leonardo Da Vinci: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (6)[Online]. March 2022; 29(A). Available from:

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2022, March 15). Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Leonardo Da Vinci: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (6). Retrieved from

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Leonardo Da Vinci: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (6). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 29.A, March. 2022. <>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2022. “Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Leonardo Da Vinci: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (6).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 29.A.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Leonardo Da Vinci: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (6).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 29.A (March 2022).

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2022, ‘Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Leonardo Da Vinci: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (6)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 29.A. Available from: <>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2022, ‘Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Leonardo Da Vinci: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (6)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 29.A.,

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Leonardo Da Vinci: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (6).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 29.A (2022): March. 2022. Web. <>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Tor Arne Jørgensen on Leonardo Da Vinci: 2019 Genius of the Year – Europe, World Genius Directory (6)[Internet]. (2022, March 29(A). Available from:


In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Based on a work at


© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012–2022. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links March be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and can disseminate for their independent purposes.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: