Do you look down on religious people as stupid?

wretcheddomain

As a committed atheist since the dawn of the God Delusion, I regularly hear comments akin to the following:

"Religious people, by definition, are irrational people as they rely on faith to get through life..."

"Religious people are not logical people because they believe in transubstantiation and other such nonsense..."

Phrases like this, quite frankly, annoy me.

If you were to take an "irrational person" then that person will be irrational about a whole range of issues in life. Say you have a renowned cosmologist who happened to believe in a deity, evidently that person cannot be described as being an "irrational person" - at best you'd have to limit yourself to saying he believes a "particularly irrational belief" - but one belief does not define a person.

These types of generalisations are intended to make the asserter feel better about themselves at the expense of other people.

I do believe that faith based positions are irrational but I've seen all too regularly how people make equally ridiculous claims by calling religious people as "irrational people", "stupid people", or "illogical people", when in fact they should focus in on the argument at hand.

Rant over.

Sound of Silence

Some of our greatest minds were religious, or at the very least embraced some form of spirituality.

People are getting confused with fundamentalism.

Geomy

I think it's worse to look down on Atheists.

Manach

Geomy wrote: »

I think it's worse to look down on Atheists.

Ye are all short or are we wearing platforms?

lazygal

I don't think religious people are stupid. But I'm frustrated by the "religious" people I know who say they don't really believe x or y or follow teachings on sex or reproduction yet still marry, baptise and do communion and confirmation in churches. I don't really respect their "faith" because they affect other people's lives in terms of schools and other social policies.

Turtwig

Just because a person believes a computer virus will make them ill doesn't mean they're stupid. Likewise just because someone wins a Nobel Prize doesn't mean they're a genius. Pretty much everyone has idiotic beliefs on something or other.

bumper234

I pity them more than anything.

fleet

In day to day life those whom we know, and know to be religious, are fine to trust.
I don't care what my local shop keeper believes.

It's when they are placed in new, challenging situations with consequences that affect people beyond themselves that we can't trust them. We just can't know that what they will do is logical, reasonable or responsible.

It's why I could never trust a religious doctor, police man, head of state etc.

Bloe Joggs

You don't have to be stupid to be pre-disposed to indoctrination. It happened to most people before they had developed the critical thinking skills to decide these things for themselves. Even for those of us who have managed to snap out of it, it's still there lurking in the deep unconscious in some shape or form. You can never quite leave it behind the way you think you have, which is exactly how it's supposed to work.

Once you understand what Memes are and realise that religions are prime examples of them, you have no difficulty in seeing how they operate and how people's minds are just mere carriers for them. So while I don't think you have to be stupid to be religious, I think some people are more susceptible to being more completely indoctrinated than others and acting as more efficient carriers for the memes of their particular faith, thereby carrying out whatever duty their particular personality will lend itself to executing it efficiently and prolonging the influence and longevity of that religion in society.

Doctor DooM

We're all idiots about something.

wretcheddomain

Of course, I anticipated the responses here and glad it isn't the same as other threads on other sites, which are replete with self-congratulatory atheists who I almost have more contempt for than faith-based religious folk to be perfectly honest.

wp_rathead

No.

There are much smarter people than I am who believe in a God.

Sonics2k

Stupid, probably not. Naive, yes.

Not so much at your everyday general belief types, though I would consider creationists and similar to be genuinely ignorant and therefore stupid.

eviltwin

I don't think they are stupid unless they put their faith above all else like the types who would disown a gay child or refuse a blood transfusion.

token56

If someone is religious and has never actually analysed their beliefs then goes on to question and criticize mine, use theirs as a basis for making important life decisions, then yes I do look down on them a bit. It probably isn't the right thing to do and I am actively trying to stop doing it because I know it's not the nicest trait for me to have.

username123

I find it difficult to respect the opinion of someone who is religious. I kind of lump them into a mental category of "believes in nonsense".

Qs

Most religious people are reasonable, intelligent folk who don't allow their spiritual beliefs stop them from understanding reality. There are of course some zealots who will refuse to believe things like evolution because of their religion, are they stupid? Hard to say but they are certainly wilfully ignorant.

Waking-Dreams

username123 wrote: »

I find it difficult to respect the opinion of someone who is religious. I kind of lump them into a mental category of "believes in nonsense".

Even if their opinion is well-informed and based on verifiable evidence?

I don’t look at them as ‘stupid’, just people who believe in stupid things. But the mind is great at compartmentalising various things, so someone can be quite rational in one domain but be swayed by irrationality when it comes to something else.

username123

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Even if their opinion is well-informed and based on verifiable evidence?

I don’t look at them as ‘stupid’, just people who believe in stupid things. But the mind is great at compartmentalising various things, so someone can be quite rational in one domain but be swayed by irrationality when it comes to something else.

Yes, I know you're right, I try not to do it, but then they say or do something that just reminds me of it and I'm back to square 1.

Rachiee

Definitely not all religious people. I myself am quite spiritual so i really understand blind faith for me its a gut feeling its totally illogical but its there so why ignore it. However i find it very hard to understand the creationists and particularly the young earth crew when there is just overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the wouldn't need to give up their faith to believe some of what science has proven. So i guess in general i don't look down on religious people, but even though i know i shouldn't the whole young earth thing is just beyond ridiculous to me so i do look down on them i can't help it.

lazygal

What does "quite spiritual" mean?

panda100

lazygal wrote: »

I don't think religious people are stupid. But I'm frustrated by the "religious" people I know who say they don't really believe x or y or follow teachings on sex or reproduction yet still marry, baptise and do communion and confirmation in churches. I don't really respect their "faith" because they affect other people's lives in terms of schools and other social policies.

I know many of the' religious' types as described by lazygal. Many of them would be deemed highly intelligent by current academic and professional standards, yet they seem to be living on a very basic level of consciousness or reflective thought. So while I don't think they are stupid, I think there inability to reach a critical conscious level makes them a bit dim.

I hope that makes sense!

Sam the Sham

It really depends on the beliefs in question. If you're a cosmologist and you feel that the idea of a Big Bang (something created out of nothing, essentially) leaves one with as many questions as it purports to resolve, you might rationally conclude that a deity of some kind was responsible, while recognising that that position also raises quite a few questions (like: where did the deity come from?).

To believe, however, that God magically impregnated a woman to give birth to Himself (but not Himself; but, yes, Himself after all) or that God routinely turns industrially-produced wafers into the actual flesh of the body of his Offspring (that is really Himself but not but is), is entirely irrational, especially since the impossibility of the latter can be demonstrated experimentally.

Ditto a belief that the universe is 6,500-7,000 years old: the evidence against this view is so overwhelming that to persist in believing it is entirely irrational.

Also, I think many religious people (well, Catholics) are irrational in their belief that it's OK to pick and choose which of the deity's commandments they want to obey. If you really believed in an all-powerful God who was responsible for your ultimate and eternal salvation (or damnation), you'd have to be a zealot or a fundamentalist. Any compromise on this, it seems to me, vitiates the purported belief in the deity's power. Those who pick and choose (yes to premarital sex, no to staying away from Mass), are acting irrationally.

smacl

I think stupid, as in lacking intelligence, is too broad a term. Considering intelligence as a single scale ranging from stupid to clever, perhaps corresponding to a number churned out by an IQ test, is neither meaningful nor useful in most contexts. Are religious people better or worse at maths than atheists? Or spatial awareness? Or problem solving? Personally, I very much doubt it though am not aware of any studies to that affect. I suspect what is actually the case is that they are working from a different canon of information than atheists, where that canon is deeply flawed, anachronistic and lacking revision, by comparison to the canon used say by the scientific community.

I think we also need to consider intelligence in terms of potential intelligence and realised intelligence as we grow and are educated. I'd speculate that a rigid faith system of beliefs, and an education that prohibited questioning those beliefs would act against developing potential intelligence to a certain degree. Mind you, the same could be said from any education system that depended very heavily on learning by rote, rather than encouraging questions, where we clearly need to find a balance between the two.

Referring to any large group of people as stupid is IMHO dangerous, divisive and incorrect. It is also worth remembering that early IQ tests were developed specifically to forward a racist agenda, and the suggestion that religious people are stupid falls into the same mess of fallacies and biases.

Adamantium

Joesph Campell's A Hero of A Thousand Faces or some other similar book is what is needed for most people.

Most people don't actually believe their faith, it's taken on hope, and they dare not have it tested for it were, it would tear the very fabric of their reality apart.

If people actually really got in touch with their religion and also watched an took in an interest in the natural world/science at the same time. The resulting pitch black and pure white contrasts would tear their minds apart. There's only so much mental gymnastics, mental masturbation, escapisim and self deception one could suffer, before saying "You know what **** it I will live my live, no it's not going back to God, like the primary school teacher said"

It is astonishing , how we're on a rock, flying through space, that the laws of gravity are so constant, that it can't turn off, consequently resulting in all life whizzing out of the atmosphere.

As George Lucas said after his accident at 17 that he shouldn't have survived: "It's a thin thread that we all hang on"

MrPudding

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Even if their opinion is well-informed and based on verifiable evidence?

Given that there doesn't exist a religious person whos opinion is based on verifiable evidence, what is your point?

MrP

Dionysius2

People who believe in religion should reflect on what the purpose of religion actually is ? Does it have a purpose ? A deity which can create all the magnificent wonders of the universe could also fix just about fix anything that needed fixing so why not do that and cut out the smoke and mirrors stuff ?

Or is that too obvious ?

Waking-Dreams

MrPudding wrote: »

Given that there doesn't exist a religious person whos opinion is based on verifiable evidence, what is your point?

MrP

Not when it comes to discussing their religion, but I was referring to when they express an opinion in other domains that can be informed by evidence. The poster I responded to said:

I find it difficult to respect the opinion of someone who is religious. I kind of lump them into a mental category of "believes in nonsense".

I read that as, someone who expresses religious beliefs or is known to be religious will not be taken as seriously when they express their opinion in other areas because of their belief in ‘nonsense’.

It goes back to the compartmentalisation thing. They can evaluate evidence in other areas save for their religion. I don’t see anything objectionable about including their opinions in domains where they can make sense just because they happen to also believe in magic (and a type of magic that has been inculcated through the process of socialisation).

vibe666

I look at genuinely religious people the same way that i would look at any otherwise sane, ordinary person who also genuinely believes that the harry potter universe and hogwarts etc. is real.

i find it very hard not to because it seems ridiculous to me that in this day and age people are continuing to propagate their willful ignorance when quite literally "the truth is out there".

i understand that (at the highest levels at least) religion exists as a means to control populations and keep everyone subservient (or at least fighting each other, not those in power), but it seems to be largely irrelevant that with the internet and all the information available at everyone's fingertips, people are still believing in religious dogma in vast numbers around the world.

i don't believe anyone at the highest levels of any religion actually believe any of what they are spouting (except for the genuinely crazy ones), but they do understand the true purpose of it all, as above, which is why they keep at it, for the power and wealth it provides the fortunately few.

I was quite interested in something NDT said about religious people a few years ago, in that although religiosity decreases the more educated you are, even amongst elite scientists, i think he said it was still 6-7% were still religious and wanting to find out why that number wasn't zero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvILvxYbFA

username123

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I read that as, someone who expresses religious beliefs or is known to be religious will not be taken as seriously when they express their opinion in other areas because of their belief in ‘nonsense’.

Yes. I think it's because I wonder, if they don't apply any kind of rigorous thought to one set of beliefs, why would they do so in other areas?

I guess I find it difficult to take any of their opinions seriously because I never know, if I start delving a bit deeper with them, at what point (if any), they are going to say "because god made it so".

Waking-Dreams

username123 wrote: »

Yes. I think it's because I wonder, if they don't apply any kind of rigorous thought to one set of beliefs, why would they do so in other areas?

I guess I find it difficult to take any of their opinions seriously because I never know, if I start delving a bit deeper with them, at what point (if any), they are going to say "because god made it so".

I get where you’re coming from but you can encounter atheists who subscribe to outlandish conspiracy theories, alternative medicines, pseudoscientific therapies, positive thinking (i.e. The Secret, What the Bleep Do We Know?) and lots of other things which disregard rational thinking.

Just because they don’t believe in a god doesn’t make them immune to other domains. Perhaps, it’s because in my own circle, at least, I interact with people who are religious and non-religious, but yet I can still encounter ‘nonsense’ from both groups of people from time to time.

vibe666

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I get where you’re coming from but you can encounter atheists who subscribe to outlandish conspiracy theories, alternative medicines, pseudoscientific therapies, positive thinking (i.e. The Secret, What the Bleep Do We Know?) and lots of other things which disregard rational thinking.

a prime example being Bill Maher who is in fact part of the anti-vaxxer crowd. :eek:

although, admittedly, if i lived in the US, I'd probably be hesitant about what I let the government inject into my children, so to a certain extend I can see where he is coming from in that regard.

Bloe Joggs

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I get where you’re coming from but you can encounter atheists who subscribe to outlandish conspiracy theories, alternative medicines, pseudoscientific therapies, positive thinking (i.e. The Secret, What the Bleep Do We Know?) and lots of other things which disregard rational thinking.

Just because they don’t believe in a god doesn’t make them immune to other domains. Perhaps, it’s because in my own circle, at least, I interact with people who are religious and non-religious, but yet I can still encounter ‘nonsense’ from both groups of people from time to time.

Yeah, though I think to be healthily sceptical means having an open mind, not being cynical by default about non-mainstream ideas. After all, religion is decidedly mainstream but still doesn't measure up to its promises. I don't see how positive thinking would be outlandish as there are many psychologists who see merit in focusing on the positives in any situation. Sure, it's spawned a whole mini publishing industry but don't lump it in with the Power of Healing Crystals, Dowsing Rods and Obama being plucked out of Kenya in the 1960's by the Bilderberg Group to be groomed as a future president.

username123

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I get where you’re coming from but you can encounter atheists who subscribe to outlandish conspiracy theories, alternative medicines, pseudoscientific therapies, positive thinking (i.e. The Secret, What the Bleep Do We Know?) and lots of other things which disregard rational thinking.

Just because they don’t believe in a god doesn’t make them immune to other domains. Perhaps, it’s because in my own circle, at least, I interact with people who are religious and non-religious, but yet I can still encounter ‘nonsense’ from both groups of people from time to time.

Yes, you are right. Atheism is no guarantee of good sense! I suppose it's that religious people (and I'm talking about people who truly believe, not cultural Catholics), actually allow their beliefs to permeate their everyday lives and sometimes come across as though they are proud of their unquestioning blind faith. Whereas I see that as something not to be proud off at all, the opposite.

freyners

I know personally people who are far more intelligent that I will ever hope to be and are religious. Had a talk with many of them and they were quite comfortable in their beliefs (as I am in mine). Just because you believe in something that others do not think is the reality doesn't make you stupid.

However people that deny hard evidence because of their beliefs are certainly irrational

stevejazzx

I think there should be a distinction made between intelligent people who are religious and intelligent people who are deists or who believe in a prime mover. Religiosity and belief in a higher being can be non overlapping. I have much less of an issue with belief in a prime mover than I do with those who believe in a personal god.
It can be argued that Einstein, Hawking and more recently Dawkins have at one stage in their careers hinted that a prime mover is a possibility (although it went without saying that any such theory was completely absent of evidence).
Nonetheless those who believe in a 'something' are less offensive to me than those who claim to 'know' there is a personal, selective god.
Really intelligent people who are 'literalists' of their respective religions I imagine are even harder to find.
I suspect those claiming that there are a lot of intelligent religious people are bundling all the above groups (agnostics too) into that proposition. The kind of people who like to claim that Einstein was a religious man.

I think all this talk of respect for religious belief in this thread is a little disingenuous to say the least. Most of the time, the sole purpose of the majority of the threads here are composed to convey the opposite sentiment.
It seems that if we accept this prejudice that we have against religious thinking then we are somehow leaving ourselves wide open to some form of politically correct type of criticism from the other side.
When did you all become such a bunch of whimps!:P
It goes without saying that we respect everyones right to life, liberty and in general their right to free expression.
However when people choose to bury their heads in the sand despite colossal mountains of evidence to the contrary and then implement policies that endanger our progress I believe we owe their stupidity no respect and don't see the need for any other form of politically correct courtesy either.

W123-80's

I don't look down on anyone.

Certainly get annoyed by the fact that cultural religion still holds the influence and grip it does on day to day Irish family life.

Most religious people I know are smarter then me in business/success terms.

Tim Robbins

Doctor DooM wrote: »

We're all idiots about something.

Yeah that's it on the money. Most people have an even more irrational take on politics which is actually more important because it effects the now.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ill informed. Mistaken. Misled. Fooled. Duped. In Error. Desperate. Even lazy. Dishonest.

There are lots of labels I would apply with differing levels of comfort to theists.

Stupid however is not one of them.

MrPudding

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Not when it comes to discussing their religion, but I was referring to when they express an opinion in other domains that can be informed by evidence. The poster I responded to said:


I read that as, someone who expresses religious beliefs or is known to be religious will not be taken as seriously when they express their opinion in other areas because of their belief in ‘nonsense’.

It goes back to the compartmentalisation thing. They can evaluate evidence in other areas save for their religion. I don’t see anything objectionable about including their opinions in domains where they can make sense just because they happen to also believe in magic (and a type of magic that has been inculcated through the process of socialisation).

Ah, my apologies, a misunderstanding on my part. That said, I am generally suspicious of a person that beleives in religion and I would, perhaps unfairly, alway be a little slower to accept something they, even outside the realm of religion. I think that is, at least partially, due to my 'belief' that their faulty thinking may not be restricted to religion, but then, as Doctor DooM said, we are all idiots about something.

Getting back to the OP, there are most certainly stupid religious people, but I don't beleive that being religious, in and of itself, makes one stupid.

MrP

MaxWig

MrPudding wrote: »

Ah, my apologies, a misunderstanding on my part. That said, I am generally suspicious of a person that beleives in religion and I would, perhaps unfairly, alway be a little slower to accept something they, even outside the realm of religion. I think that is, at least partially, due to my 'belief' that their faulty thinking may not be restricted to religion, but then, as Doctor DooM said, we are all idiots about something.

Getting back to the OP, there are most certainly stupid religious people, but I don't beleive that being religious, in and of itself, makes one stupid.

MrP

A previous poster pointed out the importance of naming what exactly it is you are uncomfortable with.

Don't mean to be pedantic, but everyone with a firm grip of reality believes in religion. It's very real.

Obv, belief in an interventionist god is different.

Its a huge distinction, as very many people express their unique spiritual identity through the traditional avenues of the church they were brought up in.

This does not mean they all share the same faith in the 'Church', let alone in an interventionist being.

smacl

MaxWig wrote: »

A previous poster pointed out the importance of naming what exactly it is you are uncomfortable with.

Don't mean to be pedantic, but everyone with a firm grip of reality believes in religion. It's very real.

Well, if we're being pedantic you probably need to define what you mean by religion. Understanding that religions exist is very different to having religious beliefs. If you're suggesting that everyone with a firm grip on reality has religious beliefs, you'll need to come up with some supporting evidence as I for one would disagree.

GarIT

I find it very difficult to associate with religious people, people who have never really though about it can be ok, but I would definitely look down on people who have actually deeply thought about it and still came out religious.

I wouldn't see a religious doctor, and wouldn't vote for a religious politician. If someone is a practising religious person I would view them as incapable of logical thinking and just couldn't trust them with anything serious.

MaxWig

smacl wrote: »

Well, if we're being pedantic you probably need to define what you mean by religion. Understanding that religions exist is very different to having religious beliefs. If you're suggesting that everyone with a firm grip on reality has religious beliefs, you'll need to come up with some supporting evidence as I for one would disagree.

No Smacl I wasn't suggesting that.

A quick read of my post should provide all the info you require to gather what is suggested in my post.

drkpower

GarIT wrote: »

I wouldn't see a religious doctor, and wouldn't vote for a religious politician. If someone is a practising religious person I would view them as incapable of logical thinking and just couldn't trust them with anything serious.

Out of interest, what response have you gotten when you raise and question the religious beliefs of the doctor(s) who comes to see you in Hospital?

GarIT

drkpower wrote: »

Out of interest, what response have you gotten when you raise and question the religious beliefs of the doctor(s) who comes to see you in Hospital?

I haven't asked but with long term doctors you get to know. I don't want to offend anyone or cause fights, I just don't trust them.

username123

GarIT wrote: »

I wouldn't see a religious doctor, and wouldn't vote for a religious politician. If someone is a practising religious person I would view them as incapable of logical thinking and just couldn't trust them with anything serious.

Yes, Im inclined to agree with this. The problem is that unless the person tells you, you dont really know. I dont know if my doctor is religious. I certainly wouldnt question her on her belief system, so unless she lets it drop accidentally I guess Ill never know.

drkpower

GarIT wrote: »

I haven't asked but with long term doctors you get to know. I don't want to offend anyone or cause fights, I just don't trust them.

Oh, I thought you said you wouldn't see a religious doctor as you just couldn't trust them with anything serious.

Do you mean that you would see a religious doctor as long as you didnt know he was religious?

drkpower

username123 wrote: »

Yes, Im inclined to agree with this. The problem is that unless the person tells you, you dont really know. I dont know if my doctor is religious. I certainly wouldnt question her on her belief system, so unless she lets it drop accidentally I guess Ill never know.

If you genuinely couldn't trust them with anything serious, surely you would be obliged to ask them their religius beliefs rather than take your chances....?

MaxWig

GarIT wrote: »

I wouldn't see a religious doctor, and wouldn't vote for a religious politician. If someone is a practising religious person I would view them as incapable of logical thinking and just couldn't trust them with anything serious.

I guess ignorance is bliss then.

This view is simplistic.

Maurice Nelligan was the leading Heart Surgeon in Ireland for years.

He was also a practicing catholic.

Are you to tell me that you wouldn't have trusted him?
That you fear his faith may have clouded his professional judgement, or intellectual capacity?
That you would have rather been treated by a humanist surgeon - perhaps with less experience?

I'm sorry, but it's as daft a position as I've come across.

username123

drkpower wrote: »

If you genuinely couldn't trust them with anything serious, surely you would be obliged to ask them their religius beliefs rather than take your chances....?

If it came up in a professional context I would probably ask for clarification and if it turned out that their religious beliefs were influencing their medical decisions I would ask for a different doctor. It actually happened to me before with a locum doctor covering for the usual GP - instead of prescribing something she gave me Islamic instruction. I complained when the regular doctor was back and that locum has never been in the practice since.

If I knew upfront that the doctor was religious in a situation where I could choose then I would rather see someone else (in the context of making a private appointment).

Sometimes in public hospital its not possible to choose so I would suffer it but if I felt religion was influencing their medical decisions I would definitely complain.

It has come up on more than one occasion among my female friends where doctors have refused to prescribe contraception because of their religious beliefs (Im old enough to be around when the pill was quite new). Thats just not acceptable to me, I dont accept morality instruction from doctors or anyone else.