Do Atheists really consider Christians less intelligent?

Post Reply New Topic

I dont see that in the dichotomy between Christians and Atheists, but I do see that in the other dichotomy: that between a subset of Christians, and everyone else (Christians, other religious, agnostics, and atheists). The subset of Christians who are Young Earth Creationists seem to be willfully ignorant (and seem to purposely leave their own brains in a pickle jar next to the church door) to everyone else (religious, or not) who acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that the Earth is more than ten thousand years old, and that the Earth and the life on it went through some kind of evolutionary process over eons.

Religion is a matter of faith. It has nothing to do with intelligence. I do sometimes wonder about religious institutions though, as they seem to me to exploit people's faith. For me, there is nothing stupid about believing in unprovable spirituality, but it is stupid to follow religious leaders without reflection.

Smug dismissal is common to those who believe they know "the answers". It certainly isn't limited to atheists. Try challenging the views of a group of theists and you'll likely experience the same dismissal of your ideas.



Only amongst smug, dismissive types.



That's not really indicative of anything. Questioning holy texts has historically been bad for your health. Not to mention we have the benefit of understanding the universe that little bit better than they did.



Quite the opposite. The most strident anti-theists tend to be those who are intimately familiar with religion, having previously been people of faith. I think there might be an element of lashing out because they feel they were duped by their former brethren - though that's purely speculation on my part - but I'm also of the opinion that human beings are hardwired to search for meaning in things. That's why the more outspoken members of the Church of Scientism (catch all descriptor for "gnostic atheists of the Dillahunty-type school of faith-bashing) tend to be ex-theists. They're replacing one belief system with another.

Most of us are of the "you mind your business and I'll mind my own" variety.

A few, certainly. I suspect more express it in those terms than actually believe it to be so. I think the more prevalent view is that religious people of any stripe give more credence than is due to emotional appeals and personal, subjective experiences.

100% Agree

While there is a link between high iq and atheism. That does not mean all smart people are atheists. There are some dumb atheists out there (Devon Tracy).

Yeep. Cool.

It is interesting everything said above. As an example, do you guys like the philosopher Daniel Dennett? I never liked his ideas myself. Seems like he is always doing some magic trick, where by sophistic slight of hand, you end up with a disappearing bunny named 'what it is like to experience anything, ever'. Kind of bugs me.

Gnostic / shamanic style beliefs? Thoughts?

Yes but no.

Yes in that it's difficult not to, critical thinking is a sign of high intellects and Christians cannot practice critical thinking on their beliefs and emerge with those beliefs intact. That isn't up for debate, zero observable evidence trumps beliefs.

No in that I don't believe that I am more intelligent than someone who is a christian, as long as that is the only information about them I'm given.

It's not ignorant to be a christian, it is wilful ignorance if you are smart enough to know better.

Peace&Love

I think Dennett has useful things to say about neurology, as well he should if he's published so many hundreds of research papers in his career. I'd have to share the same objection that he's confusing a map of function, no matter how well built, with the creation of qualia. It might sound plausible if your only concept of consciousness extending beyond nerves is a philosophical need that the dedicatedly religious need to hold their beliefs. If you've blown past that in terms of having an NDE, OBE, etc. you have no choice but to reject it and take his examination of cognition as something useful within a particular range.



Hermetic Qabalist here, my only difference in personal preference perhaps is I like having a firm/classical system to work in and to do the home-grown rituals and experiments on the side. An important part of this project for me has been weeding superstition out of my thinking and trying to get down to what I can rely on as being worth my efforts (mostly the internal alchemy and mysticism or really self-improvement side). When you first start on this path you get told all kinds of things by all kinds of different people, a lot of what's out there from even the best known occultists and yogis are filled with remarkable claims, you tend to take it that if they've been in it a lot longer that you don't really have any way to dispute it. I'm increasingly learning to just go with what I can empirically verify, put on the side what I can neither confirm nor reject, remove what I'd consider as having been roundly debunked, etc.. and it seems like when I can get down to the bottom of things most of it just gets explained really badly, misinterpreted in impossible ways (the law of attraction is classic in this sense), or you get people's visions, Steiner's are a great example, where you get to see what a jungle these places are that mystics and magicians often visit and just how challenging it is to draw verifiable facts by their direct content.

As for talking to other people about it - it's a bit easier to say that you're a psychonaut who prefers to self-explore through meditation and ritual rather than drugs. It's true, and it also explains that what you have is really a deep and multifaceted hobby. I also think our culture has a real political mess to clean up and that political mess has done a lot of damage to our ability to approach imagination and inner work not just as a stress reliever or escape but as something we'll likely need to move past our more base instincts and actually survive the increased technological leverage. I try to think of how things would be if we were in a society as animalistic as this one where just about anyone could 3D print weapons of mass destruction - with today's cut-throat competition and, while better than previous centuries, still high degree of violence we simply wouldn't survive it.

And, C.S. Lewis was a Roman Catholic, then an atheist, and finally an Anglican. By his own admissions, he played each part as was expected of him. And yet, his experience from one side of the religious spectrum to the other, and back again, gave him an understanding of many others who were seaching as well, or had stayed with the religions of their ancestors. The only criticism he gained from the experience can from his lifelong friend, J.R.R. Tolkien, who described his regret (humorously) in not being able to convince Lewis to return to Catholicism.

It might be that exploring more than one religion is a great way to learn about others and their ideas.

According to Google:
=====================================================
faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
noun: faith
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
=====================================================

1. fine, more or less completely trust scientific method and my spouse so understand.
2. sure, it is a free country (I hope), have fun, believe whatever makes you happiest!

It is very difficult to have a high opinion of the intelligence of anyone who takes the Bible (or any Scripture) literally as fact and truth. Literally speaking much of the Bible is nonsense, particularly the Creation Story. Taken literally it would imply the Universe is 6000 years old or there about. This is utter and complete nonsense.

The Fundamentalist approach is based on Biblical literalism. Frankly I would not care how strange the beliefs of Fundamentalists are, but this people try to insert their nonsense into public school science programs and this I object to most strongly. I think their denial of physical science is irrational and silly.

Some people may believe that because they were taught that as children. I personally see it as nonsense, but a creationist could say the same of atheism (which I would disagree with).

And why would atheism be an exception of the rule?

Because children aren't born theists and have to be taught out of it.

They aren't really born anything although they tend to anthropomorphize objects and go toward a sort of animism relatively early in their development. That tends to come from the notion that since they themselves are agents, they are conscious and have thoughts/feelings, that other objects are also likely conscious participants, particularly if they seem to similarly carry movement/agency of their own.