What's new

Religion and intelligence

Nice subtle jabs int he article like "...otherwise intelligent..."

Biggest complaint is that it is basically using scientists, philosophers/theists and a decline in religion in the western world as its classification for "intelligent people". Those groups hardly have the corner on intelligence.

Enjoy your 60 page thread Siro.
 
Nice subtle jabs int he article like "...otherwise intelligent..."

Biggest complaint is that it is basically using scientists, philosophers/theists and a decline in religion in the western world as its classification for "intelligent people". Those groups hardly have the corner on intelligence.

Enjoy your 60 page thread Siro.

Defining intelligence in all its facets is daunting and probably pointless. However, IQ and education are two measures of intelligence, as partial as they may be. I don't care much about IQ as a measure, but it is instructive that the religiosity of individuals tends to decline with increased knowledge and understanding. So education is in fact the best measure in this case.

There is plenty written about the subject, but I like the article because it gives a concise overview of how/why intelligent people can believe in the absurd (sorry, but it's how I see it) and still be rational in other areas.
 
Defining intelligence in all its facets is daunting and probably pointless. However, IQ and education are two measures of intelligence, as partial as they may be. I don't care much about IQ as a measure, but it is instructive that the religiosity of individuals tends to decline with increased knowledge and understanding. So education is in fact the best measure in this case.

There is plenty written about the subject, but I like the article because it gives a concise overview of how/why intelligent people can believe in the absurd (sorry, but it's how I see it) and still be rational in other areas.

True but there are numerous professions that require long periods of eduction. Such as doctors and laywers. Also "scientists" is a broad term. What proffesions are included in that?

Also this talks about religion. Are they using that in a way that includes spirituality?
 
Younger scientists are more likely to believe in god than older scientists.
https://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2009/08/04/culture-change-younger-scienti/

Doctors are more religious than average population.
https://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith.shtml

The days of Ayer, Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russell are over.

I don't have much to say about the first survey as it is pretty much the only one of its kind (that I can find), and it seems to contradict other surveys that show a decline in religion among youths. Either way, it's pretty obvious that religiosity is declining in the West. Belief in God also seems to be declining, but I would like to keep this about theism specifically, rather than a more vague belief in "higher power" or what have you. So even in your link, only a third of young scientists believe in a theistic God. If you include "higher power" it's still 50/50. That's a lot lower than the general population, and it fully supports the thesis that religiosity decreases with education.

https://www.people-press.org/values-questions/q41d/i-never-doubt-the-existence-of-god/#generation

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/belief-in-god-plummets-among-youth-chart?ref=fpb

Now I've known about the tendency of physicians to be more religious than other scientists. That's very interesting indeed. I wonder if anything worthwhile has been written about this subject in particular.
 
Now I've known about the tendency of physicians to be more religious than other scientists. That's very interesting indeed. I wonder if anything worthwhile has been written about this subject in particular.

My understanding is the training you get from medical school is very different than the one you get from a graduate program in biology. I could be wrong about this (and I'm sure dalamon will feel free to correct me if I am), but in medical school the focus seems to be on the whats, wheres, and hows much more than the whys. An atheistic surgeon and a creationist surgeon will perform the same surgery in the same way.

I think you see something similar looking at mathematicians and other philosophers, where mathematicians are much more likely to be religious believers.
 
The subject of how intelligent people can believe in religion has always occupied my mind.

THE history of religion is as old as the history of man himself. That is what archaeologists and anthropologists tell us. Even among the most “primitive,” that is to say, undeveloped, civilizations, there is found evidence of worship of some form. In fact The New Encyclopædia Britannica says that “as far as scholars have discovered, there has never existed any people, anywhere, at any time, who were not in some sense religious.”

....“new religions” tend to focus on charismatic leaders—not God. Many of these religious leaders claim to have been divinely inspired. But their doctrines are generally little more than a melting pot of Buddhist, Shinto, and other beliefs—with a large dose of the founder’s philosophy thrown in. Their appeal often lies in the promise of a better life and claimed mystical or healing powers. But do such religions give evidence that they are teaching their adherents to worship “with spirit and truth”? Hardly. For one thing, religious cults tend to be here today and gone tomorrow. Their fad like nature gives little reason for taking them seriously.

When people are approached with a religious message, they may react in one of several ways. Some will say: “Absolute truth is impossible to find”; “all religions are only out for your money”; “science has disproved religion”; “religion is just a crutch for weak people.” (or the uneducated!) These views, and others like them, tend to close the mind and cut off investigation before it has begun. It is prejudice at work.

There is a religion, however, that has been around longer than any other form of worship. It is the religion taught in the Holy Bible. The Encyclopedia Americana says concerning the Bible: “Its light ‘has gone out into all the world.’ It is now viewed as an ethical and religious treasure whose inexhaustible teaching promises to be even more valuable as the hope of a world civilization increases.” But if a book is really a believable guide to the true religion, would you not expect it to have the widest circulation, to be accessible to all truth seekers?

Such is the case with the Bible. It has been translated into 1,928 languages, in whole or in part, and it is the most widely circulated book in history. Further, it has proved to be historically and scientifically sound. Archaeology and history testify to the accurate fulfillment of Bible prophecies. It is free from all forms of spiritism and mysticism and the occult. All of this is consistent with the Bible’s own claim that it is divinely inspired.

2 Timothy 3:16, 17 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

....this is, of course, is just the beginning of my input on this discussion!
 
My understanding is the training you get from medical school is very different than the one you get from a graduate program in biology. I could be wrong about this (and I'm sure dalamon will feel free to correct me if I am), but in medical school the focus seems to be on the whats, wheres, and hows much more than the whys. An atheistic surgeon and a creationist surgeon will perform the same surgery in the same way.

I think you see something similar looking at mathematicians and other philosophers, where mathematicians are much more likely to be religious believers.

You are completely correct, I think, save for one point:

I am in my senior year of an undergraduate Genetics degree. I'm doing a research-thesis akin to an Honors student (though I am not in Honors myself, for a few reasons). I aspire to become a medical professional, and I'm applying next year, however I am not in medical school nor do I have an insiders-knowledge of the style of education.
 
Siro, you know my faith better than most. Religion is such a broad entity, and it's enthralling as to how it never influences two different people in 100% the same manner.

For me, my faith actually coerces me to pursue education, to be well-read, and to be active in the diplomacy for all. I don't think I have too many atheist friends that have a bigger lust for knowledge than myself.
 
Siro, you know my faith better than most. Religion is such a broad entity, and it's enthralling as to how it never influences two different people in 100% the same manner.

For me, my faith actually coerces me to pursue education, to be well-read, and to be active in the diplomacy for all. I don't think I have too many atheist friends that have a bigger lust for knowledge than myself.

Sure. And many of the Muslim and Christian natural philosophers were inspired to pursue knowledge through their belief in a rational God and a naturalistic world order. That's contrary to the nonsense atheists like to parrot about religion hindering humanity's scientific progress. However, now that we've discovered so much about the workings of the universe, religion simply seems, um, deficient (that's me being super nice).

The only compelling deist I've ever personally debated is AtheistPreacher. In a long *** debate we had on this forum, he convinced me that sophisticated naturalistic perspectives on godhood are possible. And that they are no more or less plausible than an atheistic perspective. But he's capable of doing that only because of his complete rejection of religion. Once you become a "believer", there is too much absurdity for any serious attempt to be rational about your perspective. Even very intelligent apologists eventually succumb to the "you got to have faith" fallacy in the end.

That is what amazes me. Not mere belief in a god. But belief in the exclusivity of truth in one religion while rejecting others for correct and rational reasons. If one can see the folly in the logic of other faiths, how can they not apply that same tools to evaluate their own beliefs?
 
That is what amazes me. Not mere belief in a god. But belief in the exclusivity of truth in one religion while rejecting others for correct and rational reasons. If one can see the folly in the logic of other faiths, how can they not apply that same tools to evaluate their own beliefs?

This is kinda why I'm agnostic
 
For me, atheism, Judaism, Buddhism, Mormonism, Catholicism, etc etc all have the same validity and likelihood of being correct as each other (if that made any sense)

Basically, nobody really KNOWS **** about ****. So to me any religion , including atheism and Satanism, COULD be just as right or wrong as any other since we are all ignorant about the afterlife
 
Sure. And many of the Muslim and Christian natural philosophers were inspired to pursue knowledge through their belief in a rational God and a naturalistic world order. That's contrary to the nonsense atheists like to parrot about religion hindering humanity's scientific progress. However, now that we've discovered so much about the workings of the universe, religion simply seems, um, deficient (that's me being super nice).

The only compelling deist I've ever personally debated is AtheistPreacher. In a long *** debate we had on this forum, he convinced me that sophisticated naturalistic perspectives on godhood are possible. And that they are no more or less plausible than an atheistic perspective. But he's capable of doing that only because of his complete rejection of religion. Once you become a "believer", there is too much absurdity for any serious attempt to be rational about your perspective. Even very intelligent apologists eventually succumb to the "you got to have faith" fallacy in the end.

That is what amazes me. Not mere belief in a god. But belief in the exclusivity of truth in one religion while rejecting others for correct and rational reasons. If one can see the folly in the logic of other faiths, how can they not apply that same tools to evaluate their own beliefs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w


The Islamic golden age didn't end until 400 years after al-Ghazli... Also the mongolian sack of Baghdad and its libraries had much more impact. Even if al-Ghazali was antiscience (which is debatable) for every al-ghazali there was a al-Tusi, avicenna, and ibn khaldun.
 
The Islamic golden age didn't end until 400 years after al-Ghazli... Also the mongolian sack of Baghdad and its libraries had much more impact. Even if al-Ghazali was antiscience (which is debatable) for every al-ghazali there was a al-Tusi, avicenna, and ibn khaldun.

Sorry but Islamic society has been intellectually poor for centuries. In the same way that Christian society was during the "Dark Ages". During both periods each respective society became much more pious. They found truth in books that contain very little that any rational person should regard as truth. They chose faith over evidence and they paid for it.

The biggest difference between Christian and Islamic society over the last few hundred years has been that one society has reaffirmed it's nonsensical beliefs whilst the other has increasingly secularized itself openly rejecting any part of its holy book that does not conform to modern sensibilities. One society adopted the sciences the other had pioneered and put a man on the moon whilst one adopted the weapons designed and manufactured by the other so that they could engage in sectarian feuding. One society is thriving the other is failing dramatically.
 
Sorry but Islamic society has been intellectually poor for centuries. In the same way that Christian society was during the "Dark Ages". During both periods each respective society became much more pious. They found truth in books that contain very little that any rational person should regard as truth. They chose faith over evidence and they paid for it.

The biggest difference between Christian and Islamic society over the last few hundred years has been that one society has reaffirmed it's nonsensical beliefs whilst the other has increasingly secularized itself openly rejecting any part of its holy book that does not conform to modern sensibilities. One society adopted the sciences the other had pioneered and put a man on the moon whilst one adopted the weapons designed and manufactured by the other so that they could engage in sectarian feuding. One society is thriving the other is failing dramatically.

Ya it has been poor since the 15th or 16th century. They didn't all of a sudden start becoming more religious and lose out on scientific advancement because of it. Name a society that has led the world in science for more than 500 years. Maybe the Greeks/Romans? Not very many of those.
 
Back
Top