6 ms·

So arrogant! You don't have to be stupid to be religious, you only have to choose to believe. I'm not religious, but I know plenty of highly intelligent people

by xj9 10y ago

So arrogant! You don't have to be stupid to be religious, you only have to choose to believe. I'm not religious, but I know plenty of highly intelligent people who are devoted one religion or another.

flukus 10y ago
It's not required, but it helps. Intelligence and religiosity correlate quite well. Most intelligent religious people will reject most of the content in their holy book of choice.
- smsm42 10y ago
  You seem to be under an impression that holy books are just collection of facts that you accept or don't. That's not how it works. Approaching it with that makes as much sense as asking soccer players why they don't just start with the ball inside the goal and save the time. That's completely missing the point of the whole thing :)
  - flukus 10y ago
    If it's about reading moral stories then why identify as $religion at all instead of reading a variety of religious texts (and other sources) and taking the pieces you want?
    - smsm42 10y ago
      Why be in a soccer team if you can just buy a ball and kick around as much as you can? ;) Again, there's more to it than reading the books. Some religions don't even have books, in fact. People had religions way before they had books. And if you think there one answer to the question "why belong to a religion" you still miss the point by a wide margin :)
  - greghatch 10y ago
    There are many that view holy books as a collection of historical accounts given by visionaries or in witness of visionaries - those that view it as "merely" a book of facts to take or leave can still hold this view, and can still be religious. Devoutness comes in many forms. Blind belief in the Bible, for example, isn't something I've really encountered in my religious upbringing - not really all that common to encounter outside of specific examples made a mockery of on Facebook or political rally (grew up in California, likely different in bible belt). Doubt is often encouraged, though min got the better of me and I've since been pretty distant from faith-based living. EDIT: grammar and clarity, minor changes
    - smsm42 10y ago
      > Devoutness comes in many forms. Oh, of course. I am not saying there's only one way to do it. On the contrary, that's exactly what I'm saying is wrong to think :)
bleachedsleet 10y ago
I always hear about the mythical intelligent religious person but somehow, they remain elusive. As a general rule, religiosity goes down as intelligence goes up. Consider William Craig. The man is a Christian philosopher and I would say he is quite intelligent. But he also tends to stray from much of what the Christian bible teaches. Now compare him to the highly devout and evangelical Ken Ham who would deny such basic truths like evolution.
- MichaelMoser123 10y ago
  > I always hear about the mythical intelligent religious person but somehow, they remain elusive You couldn't have met these two guys [1] [2], but you keep on bumping into what they did for all of us. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newto... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Eins...
  - flukus 10y ago
    Newton was a product of his times. Einstein seems to have been more agnostic, at the very least his definition of God is very different to most religions.
  - Retra 10y ago
    Newton lived only 300 years ago. Newton is a culturally relative choice, here. Why didn't you pick someone from 3000 years ago to site as intelligent? I mean, the difference between Newton and Einstein is actually very large, and the difference between Einstein and a brilliant physicist today is similarly large. The only things that Newton did that were intelligent were things that modern physicists are still unilaterally willing to do, and holding belief in a deity is not one of them. PS: Those guys are dead. You haven't met him either. They had less information available to them than we do today by a large margin. Their opinions and beliefs are inherently less trustworthy due to that.
    - MichaelMoser123 10y ago

by xj9 10y ago

flukus 10y ago

It's not required, but it helps. Intelligence and religiosity correlate quite well. Most intelligent religious people will reject most of the content in their holy book of choice.

smsm42 10y ago
You seem to be under an impression that holy books are just collection of facts that you accept or don't. That's not how it works. Approaching it with that makes as much sense as asking soccer players why they don't just start with the ball inside the goal and save the time. That's completely missing the point of the whole thing :)
- flukus 10y ago
  If it's about reading moral stories then why identify as $religion at all instead of reading a variety of religious texts (and other sources) and taking the pieces you want?
  - smsm42 10y ago
    Why be in a soccer team if you can just buy a ball and kick around as much as you can? ;) Again, there's more to it than reading the books. Some religions don't even have books, in fact. People had religions way before they had books. And if you think there one answer to the question "why belong to a religion" you still miss the point by a wide margin :)
- greghatch 10y ago
  There are many that view holy books as a collection of historical accounts given by visionaries or in witness of visionaries - those that view it as "merely" a book of facts to take or leave can still hold this view, and can still be religious. Devoutness comes in many forms. Blind belief in the Bible, for example, isn't something I've really encountered in my religious upbringing - not really all that common to encounter outside of specific examples made a mockery of on Facebook or political rally (grew up in California, likely different in bible belt). Doubt is often encouraged, though min got the better of me and I've since been pretty distant from faith-based living. EDIT: grammar and clarity, minor changes
  - smsm42 10y ago
    > Devoutness comes in many forms. Oh, of course. I am not saying there's only one way to do it. On the contrary, that's exactly what I'm saying is wrong to think :)

bleachedsleet 10y ago

I always hear about the mythical intelligent religious person but somehow, they remain elusive. As a general rule, religiosity goes down as intelligence goes up. Consider William Craig. The man is a Christian philosopher and I would say he is quite intelligent. But he also tends to stray from much of what the Christian bible teaches. Now compare him to the highly devout and evangelical Ken Ham who would deny such basic truths like evolution.

MichaelMoser123 10y ago
> I always hear about the mythical intelligent religious person but somehow, they remain elusive You couldn't have met these two guys [1] [2], but you keep on bumping into what they did for all of us. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newto... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Eins...
- flukus 10y ago
  Newton was a product of his times. Einstein seems to have been more agnostic, at the very least his definition of God is very different to most religions.
- Retra 10y ago
  Newton lived only 300 years ago. Newton is a culturally relative choice, here. Why didn't you pick someone from 3000 years ago to site as intelligent? I mean, the difference between Newton and Einstein is actually very large, and the difference between Einstein and a brilliant physicist today is similarly large. The only things that Newton did that were intelligent were things that modern physicists are still unilaterally willing to do, and holding belief in a deity is not one of them. PS: Those guys are dead. You haven't met him either. They had less information available to them than we do today by a large margin. Their opinions and beliefs are inherently less trustworthy due to that.
  - MichaelMoser123 10y ago