Can fundamental/literal religious belief and intelligence coexist?

[JessFR]

If they can, I'd say it's exceedingly rare. Though intelligent people can be brainwashed to shut down thinking.

 

[socko]

Josephus was a traitor who betrayed his own nation. He sold out the people of Jerusalem to the invading Roman empire.

So tell me about Josephus...

High IQ and fundamentalist beliefs can coexist, but when they do in the modern world, they probably have mental problems or put a lot of effort into denying science and reality.

 

[Shain77]

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)

I couldn't agree more Phil.

Intelligence can exist with fundamentalism. Science however, can't.

 

[psychedelicsoul]

I think science has certain imposed limits, especially in the field of psychology, that I believe can be transcended. I'm not anti-science. I just don't side with science over spirituality 100% of the time... Most of the time? Yes.
It depends on how much science you value and believe. You could argue it's impossible to fully support science without being an atheist.

 

[namnoc16]

I think science has certain imposed limits, especially in the field of psychology, that I believe can be transcended. I'm not anti-science. I just don't side with science over spirituality 100% of the time... Most of the time? Yes.
It depends on how much science you value and believe. You could argue it's impossible to fully support science without being an atheist.

Do you agree dinosaurs existed? Do you believe there is no physical evidence of Jesus Christ(shroud of turin has been disproven)? I know this is simplified but this was the exact discussion that was thrust upon me.
I'm not an atheist and not a Christ denier, I understand spirituality(actually more so religion)is based on blind faith but just because you have faith in something doesn't mean it should cancel out normal rationale in undeniable facts. They don't have to be mutually exclusive but it seems to some they are.What I'm trying to say is you can believe in Jesus and he could very well be real but if you believe the bible is a fact based book that is meant to be taken literal you are not a rational person and should keep your mouth shut and your ears open.
That wasn't aimed at any of my fellow BLs,that is just how I feel in general !

 

[spacejunk]

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.

That's great, i love it.

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!

Great post sir.

Namnoc16, i think your response was a good one. Better to let get a kid thinking than try to drown them in dogma (in any direction). Some adults are apparently foolish enough to think children don't know bullshit when they hear it.
But it is always nice to see someone demonstrating how to call bullshit on someone when it's necessary to do so.

 

[swilow]

I think science has certain imposed limits, especially in the field of psychology, that I believe can be transcended.

Do you mean the (Freudian) idea's of ego/superego and such, or notions of the subconcious, unconcious mind? The idea that each mind contains a hierarchical structure of levels of awareness? I've always felt this is purely speculative; there's no evidence that the ego or superego really exist. It can be damaging to relegate functions of the mind to pathology or believe one is consumed by hidden motives.

In my experience, most modern psychology is theoretically interesting but perhaps not entirely complete.

Anyway, I'd be curious for you to flesh that statement out a bit more. I actually agree, that is if my assessment of your statement is accurate.

You could argue it's impossible to fully support science without being an atheist.

I don't actually agree with that though. Science doesn't need to have anything to do with spirituality. One doesn't need to negate the other.

For me, the more I learn and comprehend regarding science, the deeper my sense of stoned awe becomes. For me, the 'true' functioning of the universe is more awe-inspiring and 'divine' then any of the mainstream religious ideas. The universe is utterly weirder and more incredible then anything rumoured to have been done by Jesus or Buddha or John Lennon even.

So, for me, science doesn't lead to, or require, atheism. It walks right past both theism and atheism and occaisionally turns back to wonder why it is being pursued by such ideas.

I imagine that one could actually worship the functioning of the universe, as a divine creator. After all, it is what it is, and it is here.

 

[namnoc16]

Actually in the U.S. many psychology departments are turning their backs on the teachings of Freud. He seems to be pre occupied with sex and everything we do from the time we are babies has some sexual undertone to it.
Psychology is definetly a fluid science ,I mean it's been less then 50 years since they labeled homosexuality as a disease.