• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Can fundamental/literal religious belief and intelligence coexist?

namnoc16

namnoc16

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Messages
1,305
I believe in something out there greater then us I just can't explain what it is but thankfully my wifes uncle see fit to cram his philosophy down my families throat!

Yesterday he was telling my kids that dinosaurs never existed because it states in the bible that man was created a week after the earth was made(apparently no mention of dinosaurs in that sleeping pill of a book) I always thought the bible had some wonderful parables in it and has a very broad outline on how man should love and understand each other(not mentioning cotradictions of an eye for an eye among many others) I've never met someone who believed in it literally(thought that was in the middle of the country). Also it upset me when he's trying to make my children Christian fundamentalists. Anyhow he got pissed when I told him there is more proof dinosaurs existed then there is that Jesus existed. I want to know was this retort wrong? I know I said it in a very condescending way but I was pissed!

Not to mention he lives with his girlfriend which if you take the bible literally is a sin,right?
 
The retort certainly wasnt wrong. There is ample proof of dinosaurs existence through many different scientific disciplines. And while many scholars believe Jesus was a real man, there is little to no archeological proof he did. Even ancient texts other than the bible do not really mention him (there may be a couple of Roman or Greek texts contemporary that mention a man similar but nothing definite).
 
Personally, I think that fundamentalist religious views are at odds with intelligence. There is no room in fundamentalist religious groups for free thinking, or anything radical. Through my own ignorance most likely, I can't see much merit in strict literal spirituality. But I think there is a world of difference between fundamentalists and 'normal' religious people. Throughout history, until recently, those considered to be geniuses were usually relgious. Many religions were interested in the physical sciences, and mathematics and art, so effectively helped give birth to the modern world. The two concepts have coexisted for a very long time IMO.
 
willow11 said:
Personally, I think that fundamentalist religious views are at odds with intelligence. There is no room in fundamentalist religious groups for free thinking, or anything radical. Through my own ignorance most likely, I can't see much merit in strict literal spirituality. But I think there is a world of difference between fundamentalists and 'normal' religious people. Throughout history, until recently, those considered to be geniuses were usually relgious. Many religions were interested in the physical sciences, and mathematics and art, so effectively helped give birth to the modern world. The two concepts have coexisted for a very long time IMO.
Click to expand...
How right you are! They are distinctively different,the fundamentalists and the average worshipper. I just wanted to clarify I didn't mean all people of faith are ignorant and that I'm enlightened, but these extremists that view an ancient text as the bible as a word for word instruction manual of the history of man and vie it as absolute fact are off their rocker. Can you say Branch Davidians?

The only reason I really got upset is because my children are learning about dinosaurs in school and don't need someone to pollute their heads with opinion over fact!
 
namnoc16 said:
The only reason I really got upset is because my children are learning about dinosaurs in school and don't need someone to pollute their heads with opinion over fact!
Click to expand...

I don't blame you. I don't have children but I would actively dislike any religious "indoctrination" particularly of the fundamental type. My family are quite religious, so I accept that my future progeny will be exposed to it, but I want it to be more academic or pseudo-ethical. There's huge potential for modern religion to provide early ethical framework that is useful and benefical for anyone in western world with legal system modified from bibilical morality. I think that a child being exposed to fundamentalism can be a good chance for them to be shown critical thinking.

That said, I went to catholic highschools. In my country, many private schools are catholic, and part of me really values that education system. I was very unsettled at school/s and was expelled from several, but I value the educational standard that I was inadevertently exposed to. I did no real work for most of my secondary schooling, and only turned up for the bare minimum of my senior education. But I somehow managed to emerge with enough 'knowledge' to get into university, so I think that the catholics do the education thing sufficently well.

Foreigner said:
Yes it can. What a silly question.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is. I think it was misphrased, because the OP is clearly talking about fundamentalist religion. To that end, I've changed the title slightly...

How about this; can rational, objective, observation intelligence exist with blind, literal, fundamental religious faith? Is there room for it?
 
Last edited:
Blind and fundamental, yes. Literal, probably not. You can be devoutly religious, need no proof of its truth and follow its laws strictly and still be intelligent to understand science is revealing the wonders of God/religion on humans terms.
 
the third of the fourteen precepts of engaged buddhism:

Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrow-mindedness.
Click to expand...

i read that again and i know, no matter how far i stray from the path, i am indeed on the right path. namaste.
 
I'm sorry if I offended anyone that wasn't my intent. I come from a catholic upbringing also willow and I have no ill will towards those who practice it but I turned my back on it because where I live they are more focused on the guilt and shame aspect of the doctrine instead of the love,forgiveness, and acceptance.
I prefer to take bits and pieces of each religion that I think help make me a better person. I feel all religions were pure at one point and over the centuries have became perverted by mans influence. I believe that anything pure,with good intent,understanding and love is of God. When it gets to the judgemental shit and telling people this is the only way to live is one step closer to Taliban or a Jihadist ideology.I don't know that's just my point of view!

Thank you willow11 for not letting my lack of clarity close your mind to what I was trying to say and your understanding(god at work,lol)!
 
Fundamentalism just means literal interpretation of something. It doesn't necessarily make people non-intelligent.

I think demagoguery is what the OP is really referring to, and that's highly problematic.

There are Biblical scholars with theology degrees who are literalists. Their world view is not a sign of intelligence but rather where they choose to put their focus. Religion in general is mostly an internalized system to help people navigate their spiritual reality.

Ignorant people and bigots come in all shapes and sizes.
 
Foreigner said:
Fundamentalism just means literal interpretation of something. It doesn't necessarily make people non-intelligent. .
Click to expand...

Your definition of fundamentalism is a good point. I guess I always thought of it in the more secular definition of strict adherence to principles, but a quick search does tell me that fundamental religion also includes literal interpretation of its laws. Thanks for that clarification.

I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement, but feel literalists are constantly trying to battle those who show them hard data on why they are wrong. Perhaps this makes them stubborn or naive but it is bordering on unintelligent thought.
 
Kittycat5 said:
I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement, but feel literalists are constantly trying to battle those who show them hard data on why they are wrong. Perhaps this makes them stubborn or naive but it is bordering on unintelligent thought.
Click to expand...
Kittycat5 I couldn't agree more and to me God is love ,understanding,and openness and people being narrow minded(seeing things from only ones own perspective) and stubborn is the exact opposite of what I believe God to be. I could be wrong but I don't feel as if I am.Don't know how to explain it ,it's innate or faith to be more precise!
 
I love these types of discussions. Thanks, I get a lot out of them. I see it all the time, people read a book, think they understand God or the story about creation, and then go sharing it with blind devotion. I can't help myself in cases like that, people who are cavalier about what God is, especially if they aren't living examples of it require a certain distance and boundaries. Doesn't mean they aren't our teachers too. Without love though I don't see how we can get the message. I wish I knew a better way, but until we are strong enough to hold that space in love, it is the best course of action that I know of. Boundaries is what works for me. I very much agree with the Buddist perspective on this one shared here. People forget it is possible to have a direct, experiential relationship with God. When we are aligned with that instead of sharing facts or other tokens of value what we share is an awareness of God in everything we do, from the most mundane to the most exquisite. Feel the need to apologize for anything I've shared on Bluelight that distracted you from your own journeys and relationships with God. Bluelight is such a powerful window into the world, but only if you look inside first and keep God close. Together we are purifying it.
 
namnoc said:
Thank you willow11 for not letting my lack of clarity close your mind to what I was trying to say and your understanding(god at work,lol)!
Click to expand...

He works in mysterious ways :D

levelsbeyond said:
People forget it is possible to have a direct, experiential relationship with God
Click to expand...

That is really true. Its odd that this aspect would be overlooked but, you are right, it is forgotten. I wonder why this is. For something which is very personal, it seems a lot of religiosity is quite academic.
 
Don't make the mistake of equating "intellect" with "rational thinking". Many psychopaths have genius level IQs but are obviously not playing with a full deck.

So in my opinion, fundamentalist belief can coexist with intellect. It absolutely cannot reconcile itself with RATIONALITY.

Your retort about dinosaurs was spot on. There is evidence beyond any shred of even an atom of doubt on dinosaurs across multiple scientific disciplines, but ZERO historical/archaeological evidence for a historic Jesus. ZERO!

(And don't come at me with Josephus and Tacitus unless you want to be taken back to school)
 
Last edited:
Sure. As far as Josephus goes, scholarly consensus is that the passage wherein he describes the life of Christ is a forgery most likely committed by a Christian (apologist) historian c.300's a.d. named Eusebius. It is unauthentic. Even if it were, Flavius Josephus was writing in the mid 60's a.d. and would have been using secondary sources himself and would not have been an eyewitness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top