|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religious people less intelligent
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What's the point of this study?
It's a message of ego reinforcement to atheists who might be in danger of "succumbing to temptation" and believing in God again.
The point is to reinforce the cliche' Enlightenment stereotype that intelligent thought, nurtured properly, ALWAYS leads to rejection of religion (phrased "religiosity" to provoke revulsion).
They can't argue this directly, so they stoop to arguing it implicitly. They claim the ability to define and measure intelligence. They apply that power to prove that the "religious" scored lower than the skeptics. They imply that intelligence is the only variable to explain this disparity.
(The laughable "three possible interpretations" in the OP read like a lapsed altar boy's rant against the tyranny of the nuns. "I don't conform?" Check. "I'm an analytical thinker?" Check. "I'm self-controlled?" Check. I must be an atheist!)
The message is clear: Skeptics, take pride in your skepticism, as it is a badge of honor for the truly intelligent. Do not ever consider religion - to do so is to reject your intelligence and embrace stupidity. Continue to treat religious people with the same disdain you would treat the most backward, ignorant elements of society.
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What's the point of this study?
It's a message of ego reinforcement to atheists who might be in danger of "succumbing to temptation" and believing in God again.
Or maybe it's a wake-up call to a church that has made education and learning into a bogeyman, and preaches that critical thinking is inimical to faith and part of the devil's toolkit. We sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. Lewis said on a different subject, "We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst." Today the church can say, "We mock thinking and are shocked to find imbeciles in our midst."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You can add me too. Shows don't it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What's the point of this study?
It's a message of ego reinforcement to atheists who might be in danger of "succumbing to temptation" and believing in God again.
The point is to reinforce the cliche' Enlightenment stereotype that intelligent thought, nurtured properly, ALWAYS leads to rejection of religion (phrased "religiosity" to provoke revulsion).
They can't argue this directly, so they stoop to arguing it implicitly. They claim the ability to define and measure intelligence. They apply that power to prove that the "religious" scored lower than the skeptics. They imply that intelligence is the only variable to explain this disparity.
(The laughable "three possible interpretations" in the OP read like a lapsed altar boy's rant against the tyranny of the nuns. "I don't conform?" Check. "I'm an analytical thinker?" Check. "I'm self-controlled?" Check. I must be an atheist!)
The message is clear: Skeptics, take pride in your skepticism, as it is a badge of honor for the truly intelligent. Do not ever consider religion - to do so is to reject your intelligence and embrace stupidity. Continue to treat religious people with the same disdain you would treat the most backward, ignorant elements of society.
Do you know many atheists who might be in danger of "succumbing to temptation" and believing in God again. ? No, I don’t either.
Being one of the (apparently) minority simpleton atheists and easily confused when in the presence of towering intellect I get a bemused sort of feeling that perhaps you don't agree with what you seem to be intent upon confirming.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I actually think that it is undoubtedly true that, on average, atheists are more 'intelligent' (in the sense of academically successful) than those of us who believe in God. In fact, I would be rather shocked if it were not true. The poor, the downtrodden, the disadvantaged and the desperate turn to the living God in their need, and, of course, among the ranks of such people are millions who have not benefited from a great education or any education at all.
What's the point of this study? Given that such a conclusion does not actually tell us anything about the truth or falsehood of religion or atheism, then so what?
You could also say that those in an academic environment are more likely to feel safe saying they are atheists then the poor, downtrodden.. etc. This is especially true in the US for oppressed minority groups which used the church to organize group protection; e.g. Blacks, Irish, Italians, Jews, Mormons....
There's no requirement that a study address the falsehood of religion or atheism, but it is pretty pointless if it's as bogus as this one.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
maybe it's a wake-up call to a church that has made education and learning into a bogeyman, and preaches that critical thinking is inimical to faith and part of the devil's toolkit...Today the church can say, "We mock thinking and are shocked to find imbeciles in our midst."
Christian churches have never opposed "education, learning, or critical thinking".
The problem is that critical skepticism can become a weapon not only against evil and falsehood, but good and truth as well.
When Occam's Razors get in the hands of "serial slashers", it's the church's responsibility to call them on it.
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
My reaction to the op, without reading the links, leaves me wondering not only how intelligence and religiosity are being narrowed down, but also whether to be religious is to conform, and why some suggest that religion is a need.
I think this is a good point; in an increasingly secular world, I think it is religious people who are not conforming to the norm around them.
I do not think the atheist or humanist pov offers an adequate alternative to what I would regard as a human cultural universal; to have faith.
[ 15. August 2013, 12:52: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Being one of the (apparently) minority simpleton atheists and easily confused when in the presence of towering intellect I get a bemused sort of feeling that perhaps you don't agree with what you seem to be intent upon confirming.
![[Smile]](smile.gif) Irony is a wonderful thing.
Questioning the validity of the conclusions of a particular study irt religious people =/= calling all atheists dim.
[ 15. August 2013, 13:02: Message edited by: Anglo Catholic Relict ]
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
maybe it's a wake-up call to a church that has made education and learning into a bogeyman, and preaches that critical thinking is inimical to faith and part of the devil's toolkit...Today the church can say, "We mock thinking and are shocked to find imbeciles in our midst."
Christian churches have never opposed "education, learning, or critical thinking".
The problem is that critical skepticism can become a weapon not only against evil and falsehood, but good and truth as well.
When Occam's Razors get in the hands of "serial slashers", it's the church's responsibility to call them on it.
Perhaps where you are they don't. But around here I know far too many who do. I don't know if it's the Church following the lead of the people, or the people following the lead of some churches, but there is a very definite anti-intellectual bias in many of the christian groups where I live (the US bible belt).
No, certainly, not all christian churches espouse this, and worldwide I'm sure it's not even a majority. But sadly, in parts of the US, it is in fact the dominant (or at least most vocal and influential) viewpoint. "too much booklarnin'"
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Christian churches have never opposed "education, learning, or critical thinking".
Galileo? Evolution?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
But around here I know far too many who do. I don't know if it's the Church following the lead of the people, or the people following the lead of some churches, but there is a very definite anti-intellectual bias in many of the christian groups where I live (the US bible belt).
Fair point (although "Bible Belt" is an insult to us in NC).
I won't deny it - when I go to church, I often feel that the congregation is jaded from a long-running fear of being theologically "burned" by intellectuals who have run off to seminary and come back trying to deconstruct all the values they hold dear. I have to be careful in Sunday School to spin my "scholarship" in a direction that gives hope and support to conservative values.
So to be more precise, I still believe that Christian churches are always in favor of education, higher learning, and critical thinking (in principle), but that comes with the expectation that intellectuals will use that to reinforce traditional beliefs (or at least make an effort to lead the congregation to a better place).
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
But sadly, in parts of the US, it is in fact the dominant (or at least most vocal and influential) viewpoint. "too much booklarnin'"
I appreciate your point, although mocking southern accents doesn't help your case...
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Galileo? Evolution?
Galileo and Evolution are interesting, but separate cases.
Note that the attack on Galileo was not an attack on education or critical thinking itself, (because the church was happy to utilize critical thinking that underwrote its own theologies, like the elaborate geocentric Ptolemaic system and all its epicycles). It was an attack on the perception of heresy, because it so radically undermined a cosmology that they assumed to be absolute truth. Galileo was always about the vanity of the church in its own infallibility, and hopefully the Protestant Reformation underscored the dangers of that.
Evolution is a different animal altogether. While I believe that it is true, it strikes at the heart of the Biblical claims of God's involvement in the world. To integrate evolution consistently into Christianity (without short-cutting into theological liberalism) is a huge task, and most non-scientists are unwilling to take steps down that road without assurance that the endpoint will be something resembling traditional views.
The existence of the "creationist" movement is testimony to the desire for evangelicals to have it both ways - to imagine that a minority of scientists, who are supporting the Biblical account of history, are the only ones practicing "real science".
This bolsters my point that the church wants education and critical thinking "in principle", but is finding it hard to discern whether critical thinking actually "disproves traditional beliefs", or if that is just an illusion designed to destroy their faith.
(I am reminded of "The King and I", where the king wants his kingdom to become "scientific" without realizing that to do so would destroy his way of life.)
[ 15. August 2013, 14:11: Message edited by: BWSmith ]
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Critical thinking that is only allowed to reach one predefined answer is not critical thinking. Ergo, many churches are not in favour of critical thinking.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
I appreciate your point, although mocking southern accents doesn't help your case...
Sorry. I myself am from Virginia, and have what could be called a southern accent. I wasn't actually trying to mock southern accent per se, but that of the less educated subset of southerners, and heck, not just southerners.. I've heard the term "booklarnin'" used by country folk pretty far north of the Mason Dixon line.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
maybe it's a wake-up call to a church that has made education and learning into a bogeyman, and preaches that critical thinking is inimical to faith and part of the devil's toolkit...Today the church can say, "We mock thinking and are shocked to find imbeciles in our midst."
Christian churches have never opposed "education, learning, or critical thinking".
Several clergy told me not to do theology at uni because it would destroy my faith and then i would go on to destroy the faith of others.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Critical thinking that is only allowed to reach one predefined answer is not critical thinking. Ergo, many churches are not in favour of critical thinking.
You'd think this would be so obvious it wouldn't need saying. But the idea that all churches value thinking and education is risible.
It even infects political parties.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Galileo was always about the vanity of the church in its own infallibility, and hopefully the Protestant Reformation underscored the dangers of that.
Naw, the Galileo case was about the relative status of bold scientific speculation (then available data on parallax shifts taken at face value proved heliocentricity wrong, and this was known!) vs. literalistic scripture interpretation, and about what happens if you insult publicly a renaissance prince who happens to be pope. And it is basically certain that the Protestant Reformation aggravated the case, because it had lead to the RCC coming down like a ton of bricks on laypeople messing about with bible interpretation.
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Evolution is a different animal altogether. While I believe that it is true, it strikes at the heart of the Biblical claims of God's involvement in the world. To integrate evolution consistently into Christianity (without short-cutting into theological liberalism) is a huge task, and most non-scientists are unwilling to take steps down that road without assurance that the endpoint will be something resembling traditional views.
Evolution never has been considered as a major problem in the RCC. The only significant issue to sort out there is that of human genesis, both historical (Adam and Eve) and immediate (infusion of the human soul). But that's not particularly hard, since what science can say on these matters leaves plenty of room for Catholic ideas. However, the general concept of randomness and natural selection is no problem at all, because in Catholic theology it makes perfect sense to say that God determined that a die should randomly fall to show for example six. Randomness is a factor of the created world (the lack of causal predictability in terms of the world), not of God. All is exactly as God wills, including those events that are nor predictably (and instrumentally) caused by other events in a physical sense. So evolution is simply a theory about how God created the natural world that we encounter.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Critical thinking that is only allowed to reach one predefined answer is not critical thinking. Ergo, many churches are not in favour of critical thinking.
This is too simplistic. Divine revelation is not comparable to a scientific theory, but to data. And natural science - nowadays considered to be the example of critical thinking - ultimately has to bow to data. There can be limited suspicion about some particular set of data in science, but in the end what cures this is more and better data, not something else than data. Scientific theory is ultimately only allowed to reach one answer, namely that compatible with observed data. If it doesn't, then it is simply false, proven wrong by data.
Likewise, thinking in religion (theology) cannot in the end but bow to Divine revelation. What is revealed ultimately cannot be questioned, but only believed (or not - but then one is not faithful to that religion any longer). Hence it is entirely appropriate to set apart certain - Divinely revealed - truths from critical thinking. They are the axioms, not the subject, of critical thought. You may of course criticise some church for setting apart too much, overdoing the designation of Divinely revealed truth. But what you cannot do is to claim that one must be able to question all. This is not the case for science, this is not the case for religion, and indeed this is not the case for any type of human inquiry. There always must be some solid ground to start from. In religion, that ground is provided by faith in certain revelations. To be critical about everything means to be catatonic.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Critical thinking that is only allowed to reach one predefined answer is not critical thinking.
I couldn't agree more!
But try getting that concept into the skulls of many atheists, who seem to assume that Ernest Hemingway's cute little saying ("All thinking men are atheists") is a self-evident truth.
Critical thinking has led me away from atheism. If someone could show me how critical thinking could possibly lead to atheism, I would be most interested (I seem to remember our very own Grokesx had to redefine logic, in order to defend atheism - hence his foray into "paraconsistent logic", which is just a fancy name for non-logic).
[ 15. August 2013, 19:08: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
maybe it's a wake-up call to a church that has made education and learning into a bogeyman, and preaches that critical thinking is inimical to faith and part of the devil's toolkit...Today the church can say, "We mock thinking and are shocked to find imbeciles in our midst."
Christian churches have never opposed "education, learning, or critical thinking".
Several clergy told me not to do theology at uni because it would destroy my faith and then i would go on to destroy the faith of others.
I've heard of this sort of sentiment before. Maybe the feeling is that university theology departments are run by atheists for whom the default position is that religion is fascinating, but ultimately an exercise in error. I can understand why religious groups would find this attitude problematic at the very least. It doesn't indicate that religious groups disapprove of all book learning, though; I'm sure that few of them would disapprove of medicine or engineering as academic courses of study.
Anti-intellectualism is probably most prevalent among low-status religious groups where few of their young people have the means to benefit from academic study anyway. It's easy to criticise something that mostly unobtainable.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I have heard several Christian leaders (and even a vicar who was educated at Cambridge, strangely enough) assert that Jesus' disciples were an uneducated bunch, so we today shouldn't be led by the educated. To those people, 'Theology' was a dirty word. I think their reasoning was that God can speak more powerfully through people who haven't had their heads filled with clever ideas.
To me, some of the wilder ideas that Christianity has come up with over the years need to be checked and tempered by Theological understanding. Not to do so would be rather foolhardy.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Re the OP and the topic.
A meta-analysis is a summation of the information from a series of studies, not a piece of new research. The authors went through 63 studies and derived summary data from each which they put together in a manner such that journal editors and blind (anonymous) reviewers thought the data actually mean something.
The mean (average) difference between groups of religious and non-religious people say nothing about a particular individual. Further, we don't know anything about the variance between the two groups.
For comparison, I have become rather annoyed in Canada when it was said often in the past that First Nations peoples (North American Indians) were on average less intelligent that their European (white) counterparts. Problem 1: there are many different cultural, language and ethnicities within the group summed up as Indian. Problem 2: the tests of intelligence are biased toward particular types of information and leave out relevant aspects of life and experience important to some people. Problem 3: the people carrying out the research are usually interested in justifying some preconceived notion which at least unconsciously, if not consciously influences them. Problem 4: the variance of the denigrated group is usually larger than more uniform superior comparison group. -- Can we apply an understanding of just this cursory listing of troubles with such types of research to this religious=stupid research? I think probably.
The people who research and write such articles usually want to show a progressiveness such that further intellectually evolved people will give up superstitions, accept science and scepticism. And they at least unconsciously steer their ideas in this direction. This meta-analysis is burdened with this within what they review, I have no doubt.
One additional comment. There is certainly an anti-intellectual streak within some of the reactionary contemporary religion. The thinking and sceptical Christian is someone who has not been fully converted, which makes me ask the sample of people who are not religious in these studies, have they been driven away by those who have seen the light and have all of the answers? That is, the stupid may be all that current trends in religious life have left us? (if we accept that there is anything correct within these studies summed by this article)
[ 16. August 2013, 02:48: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Your blind irony always amuses EE.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC...
Your blind irony always amuses EE.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I have heard several Christian leaders (and even a vicar who was educated at Cambridge, strangely enough) assert that Jesus' disciples were an uneducated bunch, so we today shouldn't be led by the educated. To those people, 'Theology' was a dirty word. I think their reasoning was that God can speak more powerfully through people who haven't had their heads filled with clever ideas.
Maybe this kind of talk from bookish clergymen is aimed more at controlling the laity than at underplaying their own intellectual achievements.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
Likewise, thinking in religion (theology) cannot in the end but bow to Divine revelation. What is revealed ultimately cannot be questioned, but only believed (or not - but then one is not faithful to that religion any longer). Hence it is entirely appropriate to set apart certain - Divinely revealed - truths from critical thinking. They are the axioms, not the subject, of critical thought.
I would agree that when we come to the position of acknowledging certain truths as being "of God', then they cannot be questioned. But that is a conclusion arrived at by logical critical thinking, namely, that God, being perfect, and possessing a perfect mind in which there cannot exist any contradiction, cannot be shown to be wrong.
However, what is the process by which we come to acknowledge that certain ideas are consistent with the will of God? Experience? Church authority? (If so, which church, and why?) Blind faith?
My concern is that some Christians may be tempted to invoke the incontrovertibility of divine truth to undermine the proper process of understanding and interpreting those truths - and especially if the agenda is to try to enforce conformity to some religious institution. For example, someone may ask a legitimate question as to why God damns people to eternal hell. The lazy approach is just to say "God can't be wrong. We just have to accept it and submit to it." The (in my view, biblical) approach is to say, "Yes, I am aware that the Bible teaches about hell, but what is the proper interpretation of this? How can I understand it? How can I truly appreciate the nature of God's justice?" In fact, in Isaiah 5:3-4 God invites us to understand and appreciate His justice, and that He has good reason to judge His 'vineyard'.
We should always seek to understand God's Word - Proverbs 4:7. This is a clear command of God. And it involves critical thinking.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What's the point of this study?
It's a message of ego reinforcement to atheists who might be in danger of "succumbing to temptation" and believing in God again.
Or maybe it's a wake-up call to a church that has made education and learning into a bogeyman, and preaches that critical thinking is inimical to faith and part of the devil's toolkit. We sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. Lewis said on a different subject, "We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst." Today the church can say, "We mock thinking and are shocked to find imbeciles in our midst."
Anti-intellectualism is a problem. At the risk of starting sounding Anti-American, there is a substantial body of literature from over the past 60 years (most of it by Americans) that suggests that it's particularly a problem in the USA. I don't know if that's true (we have plenty of willfully ignorant people in the UK).
I'm not sure how much we can lay this on the church, though. Rowan Williams, Benedict XVI, and Patriarch Bartholomew are not exactly unlearned men (each has a doctorate, speaks a vast number of languages, and worked as a university lecturer). Indeed, Rowan and Benedict were both criticized for being TOO academic by many within and without their churches. Notably, they have been replaced by men whose experience has been less academic and less cloistered (although Francis was a school teacher and a member of an order that places a very high emphasis on academic training). These are the most visible leaders of the Christian Church, and I don't think one could fairly say of any one of them that he 'has made education and learning into a bogeyman'.
A few signs from churches in provincial America cannot erase the fact that the Christian faith nurtured the minds of Jerome and Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, Erasmus and Luther, Barth and von Balthasar. And, for that matter, Kepler, Mendel, and Georges Lemaître. To say nothing of the poets, composers, and painters.
Some people feel threatened by critical thinking, and by critical thinkers. Others turn ideas into false Gods to which they will sacrifice anything or anyone to that idea. The Church and secular society have known both types of people. Often, they are one and the same.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
A few signs from churches in provincial America cannot erase the fact that the Christian faith nurtured the minds of Jerome and Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, Erasmus and Luther, Barth and von Balthasar. And, for that matter, Kepler, Mendel, and Georges Lemaître. To say nothing of the poets, composers, and painters.
I'm not talking about the past, for I do not live there. I'm talking about the present. I am not saying the Christian Church has for all history been full of anti-intellectual imbeciles. I am saying that right now, in the United States, there is a strong vein of anti-educationalism in conservative Christian circles. That anybody should deny this speaks, to me, of a vast and resounding ignorance of American popular Christian culture.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
A few signs from churches in provincial America cannot erase the fact that the Christian faith nurtured the minds of Jerome and Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, Erasmus and Luther, Barth and von Balthasar. And, for that matter, Kepler, Mendel, and Georges Lemaître. To say nothing of the poets, composers, and painters.
I'm not talking about the past, for I do not live there. I'm talking about the present. I am not saying the Christian Church has for all history been full of anti-intellectual imbeciles. I am saying that right now, in the United States, there is a strong vein of anti-educationalism in conservative Christian circles. That anybody should deny this speaks, to me, of a vast and resounding ignorance of American popular Christian culture.
I must say that I find it surprising, even bizarre, for anybody (let alone an Orthodox Christian) to speak of 'the church' in one breath and then to speak of 'American popular Christian culture' as though that were the same thing. American Evangelicals are small minority of Christians. Surely the Church is either broad enough to include other varieties, or else narrow enough to exclude them (the latter, as I understand it, being very much the official view of your own confession).
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I must say that I find it surprising, even bizarre, for anybody (let alone an Orthodox Christian) to speak of 'the church' in one breath and then to speak of 'American popular Christian culture' as though that were the same thing.
I certainly wasn't trying to equate them. I am trying to counter the idea that there are no Christians who are anti-intellectual. I don't know why you want to defend this idea, but that is what you are doing.
quote:
American Evangelicals are small minority of Christians.
In this country they have enormous clout. You don't see Catholics or ELCA Lutherans (let alone the Orthodox) being able to dumb down the contents of Texas schoolbooks.
quote:
Surely the Church is either broad enough to include other varieties, or else narrow enough to exclude them (the latter, as I understand it, being very much the official view of your own confession).
I don't know what this sentence has to do with anything. What does the broadness or the narrowness of the church have to do with the existence of imbecile Christian thinking-haters?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
maybe it's a wake-up call to a church that has made education and learning into a bogeyman, and preaches that critical thinking is inimical to faith and part of the devil's toolkit...Today the church can say, "We mock thinking and are shocked to find imbeciles in our midst."
Christian churches have never opposed "education, learning, or critical thinking".
Several clergy told me not to do theology at uni because it would destroy my faith and then i would go on to destroy the faith of others.
I know a theology graduate who was told that. It didn't. Depends perhaps on the nature of one's faith. If it's challenging and critical, theology will be grist to the mill.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I believe that if you discuss "intelligence" with appropriate psychological professionals, you will find that there are a number of different kinds of intelligence. If you claim that members of group A are, on the average, more intelligent than members of group B, then you need to be more specific. Are we speaking of the ability to follow a chain of reasoning, or of the ability to create such a chain, or of the accuracy and reliability of short-term memory, or of long-term memory? Or perhaps perfect pitch, or the ability to estimate distance/area/elapsed time/weight? Or kinesthetic ability? Or the ability to do mental arithmetic, or perhaps visualize complex shapes in multiple dimensions?
Some of the comments on this thread are rather revealing. Some people want to count degrees; do they mean to suggest that anyone illiterate is necessarily not intelligent? Others point out various highly intelligent individuals and apparently want to draw conclusions about large groups of people. As for IQ tests, these were invented as measures of the development of children, and they are usually tied to language and culture. Presumably there are highly intelligent people of various cultures, mother tongues and educations.
By the way, if you want to speak of "religious" people, do you mean people who self-identify as such, or people who attend a mainstream church, or people exposed to such as children? Are you including all religions or just theistic ones or just Christianity? Or do you want to include those who are expressing superstition and faith in any fashion at all, such as buying lottery tickets?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andromeda
Shipmate
# 11304
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Christian churches have never opposed "education, learning, or critical thinking".
This wasn't my experience in the evangelical church (UK) I encountered much black and white thinking and was subjected to numerous hocus pocus sermons from YEC types. It was one of the reasons I left. The majority view always seemed to be 'agree with what they say at the front.' I think anti-intellectualism is rife (but intellectualism/critical thinking not non-existent) in the evo church. Mousethief makes a good point.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anti-intellectualism is probably most prevalent among low-status religious groups where few of their young people have the means to benefit from academic study anyway. It's easy to criticise something that mostly unobtainable.
Again, not my experience, my church was full of the university educated and middle class professionals.
--------------------
In this world you’ll have trouble. But cheer up! I have overcome the world.
Posts: 57 | From: South Wales | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Indeed. It was always a puzzle to me how many well educated evangelicals I met were able to shut off and indeed oppose any sense of intellectual inquiry when it came to their faith. But then a lot of them were natural scientists and mathematicians wedded to a very narrowly black and white positivist epistemology, and when I realised this it became a bit less puzzling.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andromeda
Shipmate
# 11304
|
Posted
Hmm - you kind of lost me with positivist epistemology.
--------------------
In this world you’ll have trouble. But cheer up! I have overcome the world.
Posts: 57 | From: South Wales | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In other words their method of acquiring faith is completely disconnected from their profession. So one can have a PhD in geology and be a YEC.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Three possible interpretations were discussed.
- <snip>
- Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs.
<snip>
The assumption there that the One True Intelligence is analytical is erroneous. It's often claimed that intelligence tests make no room for intuition but, when I took the Mensa test*, it was presented in two parts - a pass in either of which would qualify you. The second part was entirely spatial and conducted at a speed that precluded analysis. If you couldn't 'sense' the answers instantly you stood no chance of figuring them out.
*Yes, they let me in though I didn't stick around for long - that Woody Allen thing about not wanting to be in any club that would accept me as a member, I suppose. But biometric tests have shown me to be substantially 'right-brained'. So I have two pieces of paper that together prove** that I'm both intelligent and intuitive.
(**Yeah yeah, I know)
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Anti-intellectualism is probably most prevalent among low-status religious groups where few of their young people have the means to benefit from academic study anyway. It's easy to criticise something that mostly unobtainable.
Again, not my experience, my church was full of the university educated and middle class professionals.
However, if you look at the origins of these congregations or denominations, they could be quite working class. Maybe it's an example of the Protestant work ethic gradually taking over and turning working class congregations into middle class ones.
This website has long prompted me to ask why middle class non-evangelicals attend middle class evangelical churches. (It seems like a recipe for theological frustration to me!) One answer must be that they want to be among people who resemble them demographically. Alternatively, maybe the class of the church doesn't matter, and they just want to experience a church that resembles them psychologically, because it promotes an image of dynamism and success, rather than respectable decline, as many mainstream churches seem to do. If enough middle class people, evangelical or not, join a successful working class church then the culture of that church will eventually change.
[ 24. August 2013, 01:25: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Andromeda:
Hmm - you kind of lost me with positivist epistemology.
Sorry. What I meant by that- and I may be using the term inaccurately, but I was posting in a hurry- is an understanding of knowledge which is very much 'what you see is what you get': this is distinguishable from a view which, for instance, stresses the importance of the interpretation and understandings that the observer brings to the process of observation. Now, AIUI basically the natural sciences are grounded on a view that what you see is indeed what you get- although good natural scientists will tell you that it may well be more nuanced than less good natural scientists think. This, in the case off the people that i am referring to, leads to a very literal approach to understanding the Bible, in particular: and indeed there's a book called The Scandal of The Evangelical Mind, I think, by a US Evangelical whose name someone will no doubt remind me of, which argues that US Biblical fundamentalism arose from attempts in the late C19 and early C20 to 'beat science at its own game' by applying this kind of positivist approach to Scripture.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andromeda
Shipmate
# 11304
|
Posted
Ah Ok I understand. Thanks for the clarification Albertus. That does sound plausible.
--------------------
In this world you’ll have trouble. But cheer up! I have overcome the world.
Posts: 57 | From: South Wales | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So one can have a PhD in geology and be a YEC.
I know a YEC who is a geneticist. I've never understood how he combines those things in his mind.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
