Kinsao said:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Einstein religious? :?
Not religious, in the sense that he did not believe in any religion and certainly not Judaism or Christianity. Just read
a few of his quotations to understand. Of course, he lived at a time when religion was still strong in the West, then moved to the very religious USA, so he could not easily claim that he was an atheist. Yet, from his remarks, we can feel that he was either an atheist or more likely a pantheist (which is why he saw Buddhism positively).
And, yeah, I know that doesn't "prove" anything... but, let's bear in mind that in past times, religion was more popular/common (it was less acceptable to have no religious belief), more of people held to some kind of religious belief especially as science was less advanced and there was less knowledge about how things work...
That is my main argument. People were more religious in the past, and the more human knowledge increases and the better educated people become, the less religious society becomes. The 20th century has seen more human progress than maybe the whole combined human history before that. This is especially true after WWII. And the decrease in religious convictions have been closely correlated to this evolution.
what I am trying inarticulately to say, is, there were many "intelligent" things like inventions, scientific discoveries, great art/literature, etc. etc., made, by people who had a religious belief, and these are a good part of the things our society and "civilisation" is founded on today. So in a sense, it is their "intelligence" that has enabled us to get where we are today.
Note that the greatest scientists or philosophers have usually had troubles with the Church. In the middle ages, anyone who dare disagree with the Bible was burnt at the stake. Result : dark ages. From the Renaissance, some have rediscovered ancient Greek philosophers, understood the mistaken beliefs of Christian ideas, and carefully tried to express them. Some were burnt at the stake (e.g.
Giordano Bruno for saying that the earth revolves around the sun), and others ended up in jail (e.g.
Galileo Galilei for insinuating the same, yet without ever affirming it publicly). The greatest intellectual development of Europe came in the 18th century Enlightenment when French, German or British philosophers enjoyed more freedom of speech (mainly because the government had become much stronger than the Church). The Reformation certainly helped a lot reduce religious persecutions once the wars of religions of the 16th and 17th centuries had ended. Protestant countries like the Netherlands and England encouraged intellectual development, as they were enemies of the Catholic Church.
In conclusion, I don't believe that religiousness or non-religiousness plays any part in a person's intelligence. You can get stupid, sheep-like following religious believers, and you can also get atheists who are as thick as ****. It depends on the capacity and abilities of the person's brain.
I see your point about some "stupid atheists". This is because there are different kinds of atheism. Some people are atheist because they don't care about god and religion. They are insensitive to it or philosophical questions in general. They just don't care. These are called
weak atheist. Some weak atheists can be intelligent, but most are just insensitive to spiritual or intellectual issues. They contrast sharply with
strong atheists, who are philosophically convinced that religions are the invention of men, cannot therefore be divine or contain any truth, and by analysing the undrlying psychology of the human mind and its representation to god, have concluded that there is no such thing as a personal god or one that cares about or judge humans. Weak atheist are close to animists and polytheists, while strong atheists are very close to pantheists (almost the same) and agnostics, and also quite close to deists. (
see graph of religious beliefs)
To me, if someone is "religious" it means they have a belief that an intelligence was behind the creation of the universe... i.e. something with consciousness... (above and beyond that are all the nuances and complexities of the different religions, some of which
are indeed characterised by a lack of intelligence in some behaviours...
)
No, just believing in god is called spirituality. For example, all deists and many pantheists are not religious, but believe in god. Religiousness is believing in a religion, like Christianity, with an organisation, a dogma, priests, worshipping places, etc. If you don't follow any religion (you are free to take moral values from anywhere you want, though) and believe in god, you are a
deist. I have nothing against deists. I don't agree that god exist, but I respect their belief. Yet, I don't respect people who follow an exclusive monotheistic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam...). Other religions (e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, Shintoism) are "passable" for those who
need something to believe in.
That doesn't seem to me to preclude an intelligent and also scientific understanding of the world. It is just their opinion of the way things came into being and of things beyond our comprehension, and since no-one can prove absence of a supreme "intelligence" any more than they can prove its existence, I don't think it can be said to be an unintelligent standpoint.
It is easy to prove that religion are man-made. A bit a psychology and common sense can also disprove the existence of a personal god, or one with human attributes (thinking, feeling, judging...). The rest is believe, which is one I only accept deism, pantheism, agnosticism and atheism as intellectually valid
beliefs. Others are demonstrated lies.
