Religious people are stupid?

[Tahuti]

Sure. Maybe. Seems fair. I'd not know about that, I think. I live in a pretty religious society, so it's the atheists that stick out.

Well, militant atheists tend to proudly proclaim their ideas here, even though most people I encounter in daily life are agnostic atheists (though of the non-militant and non-intellectual 'I wasn't raised religiously variety'). One stands out more by being a theist than by being non-theist.

Personally, I'd describe my religious position as that of a theist agnostic; god surely exists, though I'm agnostic to what is the most appropriate way of honouring him.

I would say that religious beliefs or lack thereof don't have much of a connection with intelligence at all. Religious beliefs seems primarily to be connected with upbringing and social situation to me.

Well, the most religious societies tend to lack a middle class comparable in size to the West, considering the Islamic world. Whenever middle class values and religion do go hand-to-hand, as in the US and Victorian Britain, it often seems to intellectually unsophisticated, putting religion in a position of ridicule. Creationism as an article of belief wasn't really a popular until the 1900s, for instance.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

God surely exists is not an agnostic position.

 

[Tahuti]

God surely exists is not an agnostic position.

No, but one can be agnostic about the rest - i.e. which religion is true.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You're an agnostic towards the characteristics of God. Your belief tells you God exists.

Agnosticism is usually related towards knowledge of the existence of God.

How about this: you have faith God exists therefore you're certain he exists, but you cannot say: God surely exists, because then you'd be stating an Universal Fact. Your certainty belongs to you. Stating God exists makes you gnostic. Stating you're certain does not. Since that certainty is fuelled by faith, not knowledge.

 

[Tahuti]

You're an agnostic towards the characteristics of God. Your belief tells you God exists.

Agnosticism is usually related towards knowledge of the existence of God.

How about this: you have faith God exists therefore you're certain he exists, but you cannot say: God surely exists, because then you'd be stating an Universal Fact. Your certainty belongs to you. Stating God exists makes you gnostic. Stating you're certain does not. Since that certainty is fuelled by faith, not knowledge.

I'm not denying your points, pure agnosticism as a wholesale religious position is by its definition agnostic to the existence of god. However, 'deism' doesn't cover my position since I do not reject organised religion, as I am agnostic towards that.

 

[timtofly]

Well, militant atheists tend to proudly proclaim their ideas here, even though most people I encounter in daily life are agnostic atheists (though of the non-militant and non-intellectual 'I wasn't raised religiously variety'). One stands out more by being a theist than by being non-theist.

Personally, I'd describe my religious position as that of a theist agnostic; god surely exists, though I'm agnostic to what is the most appropriate way of honouring him.

Well, the most religious societies tend to lack a middle class comparable in size to the West, considering the Islamic world. Whenever middle class values and religion do go hand-to-hand, as in the US and Victorian Britain, it often seems to intellectually unsophisticated, putting religion in a position of ridicule. Creationism as an article of belief wasn't really a popular until the 1900s, for instance.

Using creation as a means of proving God's existence was never a factor, until textual critics needed to rely on objective physical proof. It was never a point of belief. It does come with understanding God and how he works. Religion does not exist on what is in the Bible either. Religion is man's interpretation of the Bible and not really what is in the Bible.

You're an agnostic towards the characteristics of God. Your belief tells you God exists.

Agnosticism is usually related towards knowledge of the existence of God.

How about this: you have faith God exists therefore you're certain he exists, but you cannot say: God surely exists, because then you'd be stating an Universal Fact. Your certainty belongs to you. Stating God exists makes you gnostic. Stating you're certain does not. Since that certainty is fuelled by faith, not knowledge.

What about faith that comes from knowledge? Is it different than faith that comes from the lack of knowledge?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I didn't claim faith is a result of lack of knowledge. It's a result of conviction.

 

[timtofly]

Is conviction the same thing as knowledge?

 

[Perfection]

The problem with being smart is you're very good at defending things you believe for not-so-smart reasons.

I'd say this applies pretty broadly to people of all religions and irreligions. Saying "group x is stupid." rarely opens up productive conversation.

Of course! In defense of atheism though, I think more atheists are aware of that sort of bias and attempt to route it out in their heads.

 

[uppi]

Is conviction the same thing as knowledge?

No, it isn't

 

[Farm Boy]

Of course! In defense of atheism though, I think more atheists are aware of that sort of bias and attempt to route it out in their heads.

That's optimistic.

 

[Perfection]

That's optimistic.

Given the greater prominence of atheists in careers that train one to avoid those biases (philosophy and the sciences) I think it's well supported. Of course, this is a bulk thing, plenty of atheists are oblivious to confirmation bias, and plenty of nonatheists aren't.

 

[Tahuti]

Given the greater prominence of atheists in careers that train one to avoid those biases (philosophy and the sciences) I think it's well supported.

That is more indicative of the times than the supposed innate bias-freeness of atheism. 500 years ago, Christianity used to be dominant among scientists in Europe.

 

[timtofly]

No, it isn't

If conviction is not knowledge, would that not imply that there is a lack of knowledge? It would seem that just reading about something is considered knowledge, but that is just book learning and not based on experience. Should one apply and experience a phenomenon, before they claim knowledge on the subject? If conviction is just a feeling, then it would seem to be useless, even as a psychological prop. That would be a deceptive lie.

 

[Perfection]

That is more indicative of the times than the supposed innate bias-freeness of atheism. 500 years ago, Christianity used to be dominant among scientists in Europe.

500 years ago you had to be a Christian to be a scientist or the pope would kick your ass.

I don't think the modern prominence is merely because it's trendy.

 

[timtofly]

500 years ago you had to be a Christian to be a scientist or the pope would kick your....
I don't think the modern prominence is merely because it's trendy.

Now you are just shunned.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's true. Modern atheism owes a lot to the groundwork laid by yesterday's Christians.

I think we've discovered more and more cognitive biases as time goes on though, this allows wisdom to iteratively improve over time.

 

[Perfection]

Now you are just shunned.

Not really the case from what I've seen. There are some who are marginalized for advocating rather silly ideas for religiously motivated reasons, but it's the silliness not the religiousness that's at issue. Is there any particular example you'd like to discuss?

 

[timtofly]

Marginalized or shunned? What is the difference?

 

[Perfection]

Not too much in particular. My point is that it's the silliness that produces the negative reaction, not the religiousness. Those who produce silly ideas are not going to achieve respect in the academic world.