Vesica

After some wandering around the pages of this forum I have come up with a few questions I'd like to throw out for general discussion...Since many of the posts here deal with Christianity in particular I will stick with that...

Is Christianity (or broader religon as a whole) OK as a personal choice?
Is there an inherent problem with people embracing religion, in spite of the evidence or lack thereof?
Moreover, can one be an intelligent individual and still embrace a religous faith, particularly Christianity?

I am looking for honest opinions on the subject so don't worry about offending anyone (like that was holding you back )....

Shadowy Man

The answer is yes. I know a couple of astrophysicists who are very intelligent people, yet still embrance the Christian religion. I have gotten into long discussions with one in particular, and he has done some serious questioning about his beliefs, but still believes in God, and has decided that Christianity is a good model for his life. He is very open to questions and self-searching and I don't think he's a Bible literalist.

Philosoft

Depends. OK as a personal moral system or OK as a personal explanation of some scientific phenomena?

<strong> No. The inherent problem is with dogmatic thinking. Eliminate that and a theist should have no problems.

<strong> Of course. Intelligence is not a monolithic entity. Failure to think critically is not a wholesale indictment.

Vesica

Thanks for the response!

I think that last question comes from a prevelant view I encountered in higher level education that one can not actually be a rational intelligent being and embrace a personal faith...Obviously you were simply using it as a crutch (as opposed to using intellectualism as a crutch I suppose )

Vesica

I meant as a personal moral system...I have heard the position that religion as a whole should be thrown over and somehow we were supposed to make people believe on facts...It struck me as a tad repressive but hey!

Re: Dogmatic thinking...

What qualifies as dogmatic thinking? There are a few essential parts of Christianity that even a sort-of believer kinda has to go with or it doesn't resemble Christianity anymore....

I guess part of the question should have been something like: If there is no proof the Jesus every really walked the Earth or any of that whole story ever happened, Can one make a rationals choice not to spend forever worrying about it and accept it on a purely metaphorical level (and not be an idiot in the eyes of others)??

Graeme

While I agree that one can be both intelligent and religious, I fail to see how people use intellectualism as a crutch.

Mr. Sammi

I think "final intelligence" must come to terms with itself and its religion. So we would have the religion of intelligence AND the intelligence of religion.

Who comes out on top, the Amerindians who have their "earthly religion", OR the Christians who have their "easy religion", OR the HINDUS who have their "progressive religion", OR the Muslims who have their "accountable religion", OR the Jews who have their "pratical religion", OR I who had "smart religion".

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Philosoft

I don't have any problem with philosophical opposition to religion, per se, but I think it has to be done by encouraging critical thinking rather than trying to browbeat religious thinking.

<strong> Basically, accepting a proposition as true because of the testimony of someone who claims authority.

<strong> Indeed, but there are is least scriptural support for the divinity of Jesus. A Christian who relies solely on his own interpretations of Scripture may not be thinking very critically, but at least he's not accepting someone's testimony for no good reason.

<strong> Sure. I have no problem with the idea that the stories in the Bible are metaphors, even if I don't necessarily know what they are metaphors for.

Ierrellus

In "The marriage of Heaven and Hell" Blake and an angel are sitting at the edge of a precipice. The angel shows Blake a vision of the horrific perdition the latter is doomed to. Blake responds to the angel that that vision is the angel's vision, not his.

Dogmatism, for me, is acceptable as long as nobody threatens me with it. If someone tells me I am to burn for eternity for not believing as they do, I put away my peashooter and return with my semi-automatic. If someone tells me about the universe that God couldn't do it that way, my intelligence, or whatever is left of, it is insulted.

Einstein was a theist. So am I.

Ierrellus

PAX

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Perchance

I think it certainly is- as long as it is a personal choice, and not something that someone is indoctrinated into either when they're too young to say no or at a very emotional time in their lives. I've met very few people who have consciously made a choice for the religion they currently embrace. Most of them were raised by their parents into that religion, and have never really thought to question it.

Again, since I think many people embrace a family religion, I don't know if they've ever been presented with or seriously considered the evidence or lack of it. If someone is confronted with, say, a ton of evidence for evolution and forcibly chooses to reject it in favor of creationism, as a former roommate of mine did a few years ago, then I would have to question at least their critical thinking ability. Intelligence (or sanity!) wouldn't necessarily have to enter into it.

Yes, I think so. As I mentioned above (you might have noticed the trend ) I think acceptance or not of religion has a lot to do with individual will, family background, and critical or skeptical thinking ability, more than intelligence per se.

On the other hand, I do think that religion can sometimes prevent intelligent theists from coming to interpretations that seem obvious to others who are actually less intelligent. A fellow English student of mine I met this past year is very sharp, very good at reading texts, very good at connecting little details. Yet she kept failing the papers we had to write because she is also a fundamentalist (self-described), and she tried to twist everything we read, even things like Prometheus Unbound that had to do with Greek mythology or the poet's own imagination, into a Christian context. It was as if that were the only way she could think.

When I see something like that, it does sadden me, especially because the person may see it as a struggle between their intelligence and their religious faith.

-Perchance.

P.S. Oh, and welcome to II, Vesica!