Smart People

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gliggle said:
I believe there could be some issue with the way scientific institutions are set up these days (universities etc). It is very difficult to forge a scientific/academic career and reach the level of Professor without being completely self-serving. Thus I think many truly religious scientists find it harder to reach the heights of credibility that Atheist scientists do, simply because they are unwilling to adopt the cutthroat nature of the successful modern scientist if they are sincere about their faith.

I am not suggesting all Athiest scientists are utterly self-serving (certainly not), but I am suggesting that truly religious people tend not to be.
Click to expand...
This is closer to the truth as anything written in this thread. To become known as a Christian in academia is almost instant career suicide.

Modern Evangelical theology hasn’t done Catholic intellectuals any favors. The same Catholicism which produced Dun Scotus, Peter Lombard, St. Thomas Aquinas and a long list of Jesuit scientists is now lumped in with literal 6-day creationism, rapture theories and rock & roll worship “experiences”. Intellectual rigor isn’t associated with mainstream Christian theology in the way it used to be and scholasticism has been replaced in people’s mind with the prosperity Gospel.

Announce that you now believe in God and watch your chances for tenure disappear.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
This is closer to the truth as anything written in this thread. To become known as a Christian in academia is almost instant career suicide.

Modern Evangelical theology hasn’t done Catholic intellectuals any favors. The same Catholicism which produced Dun Scotus, Peter Lombard, St. Thomas Aquinas and a long list of Jesuit scientists is now lumped in with literal 6-day creationism, rapture theories and rock & roll worship “experiences”. Intellectual rigor isn’t associated with mainstream Christian theology in the way it used to be and scholasticism has been replaced in people’s mind with the prosperity Gospel.

Announce that you now beieve in God and watch your chances for tenure disappear.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
But why…because Christians aren’t as cut throat as some others who are atheist? I saw God Is Not Dead and Kevin Sorbos character was such a jerk. Makes me wonder how realistic it was.
 
Faith1960 said:
I’m sorry, I don’t understand your question, but wow, there are a lot of smart scientists!👍
Click to expand...
Tims and Gliggles points are valid also. Its more of a social period of transition we are talking with secular education and the past 50 years. So we have a contrast in thinking religious/athiest. Which I think has perspective here…
I am not suggesting all Athiest scientists are utterly self-serving (certainly not), but I am suggesting that truly religious people tend not to be.
Click to expand...
Or as Tim suggests with career suicide and above its a matter of tolerance as we would have to assume good is in relation to all. I mean China with a Catholic belief and career is probably more suicidal than here.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Tims and Gliggles points are valid also. Its more of a social period of transition we are talking with secular education and the past 50 years. So we have a contrast in thinking religious/athiest. Which I think has perspective here…
.
Click to expand...
Do you think it will (or is it already) shift back the other way?
 
GaryTaylor said:
Tims and Gliggles points are valid also. Its more of a social period of transition we are talking with secular education and the past 50 years. So we have a contrast in thinking religious/athiest. Which I think has perspective here…
Click to expand...
So, are you basically saying that atheism is the new fad, the new orthodoxy? Because I do agree that right now Western Culture is trying its best to divorce itself from Christianity. Nietzsche’s objection is no longer valid: the English flatheads have realized that they can’t “pick and choose” what parts of Christianity that they like.* So they are trying to abandon it as if it were an embarrassing high school photo, destroying all evidence that the West had anything to do with Christianity. Remember, the European Union refuses to acknowledge its Christian Heritage :confused:

Christi pax,

Lucretius

*Back then, many English atheists would deny the existence of God, but claim that Christian morality was self-evident. Nietzsche argued that Christian ethics are only self-evident because of the dominance of Christian thought in Western culture for 1000 years. He claimed that those “English Flatheads” didn’t figure this out yet. Now, it seems they have, and look what they’ve done :bigyikes:
 
Lucretius said:
So, are you basically saying that atheism is the new fad, the new orthodoxy? Because I do agree that right now Western Culture is trying its best to divorce itself from Christianity. Nietzsche’s objection is no longer valid: the English flatheads have realized that they can’t “pick and choose” what parts of Christianity that they like.* So they are trying to abandon it as if it were an embarrassing high school photo, destroying all evidence that the West had anything to do with Christianity. Remember, the European Union refuses to acknowledge its Christian Heritage :confused:

Christi pax,

Lucretius

*Back then, many English atheists would deny the existence of God, but claim that Christian morality was self-evident. Nietzsche argued that Christian ethics are only self-evident because of the dominance of Christian thought in Western culture for 1000 years. He claimed that those “English Flatheads” didn’t figure this out yet. Now, it seems they have, and look what they’ve done :bigyikes:
Click to expand...
This convoy is starting to go over my head. :confused:
 
Faith1960 said:
Can anyone debunk the atheist POV ? I didn’t think Fr. Barron did it very well.
Click to expand...
I think you got that right.

To say that profesional scientists and philosophers just don’t get the real meaning of God would almost certainly mean that Joe Blow doesn’t either. So if the scientists are too dumb to be Christian, how come everyone else is smart enough to be so? Do they believe in God without realising what He actually is?

The politics of the matter has been ably answered by DaddyGirl, which leaves the complaint that current statistics are deemed more important than those of earlier years. Well, probably they are more relevant becuase, I don’t know, maybe because we don’t live in an earlier age and we want to find out what people believe now.
 
Remember, non-religious DOES NOT equate to atheism. There are many non-religious theists or deists (Thomas Paine, for example), as well as religious atheists (many Buddhists, many ethic Japanese). Also, it seems that when people criticize religion in the West, they are usually referring to Christianity (and then, usually only Catholicism and Protestantism), and maybe Islam. Very rarely do they think of Hinduism, Daoism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Animism etc. when they say that word. Furthermore, there are far more religious people in the world then non-religious (in many places, religion is mixed into the culture to the point that they are inseparable, like Japan, China, etc.).

The strain of atheism in the West, which could be called Materialistic Atheism, has never been popular anywhere at anytime in history (this atheism is not new either: Democrates and Lucretius believed this form); it has no substance: it doubts everything, leaving an empty vacuum. This atheism doesn’t replace what it has thrown out, and considering that a quick look in history would indicate that all cultures had some sort of religious expression, I would say that religion is a sort of impulse in human nature (like the impulse for food, drink, sex, knowledge, etc.), and it ultimately can’t be suppressed in the whole population.

To say that religious people are dumber then non-religious people is elitist and arrogant, for the “scientific” atheism that is espoused is a clear minority in America, in today’s world at large, and all throughout history. Since this form of atheism has been around before Socrates in the West, and never caught on with “smart people” like Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes … Maimonides, St Albertus Magnus, Oresme … Kepler, Galileo, Newton, etc., etc., yet is considered “obviously correct”, and being used to bash religion (which is believed to be “obviously BS”), is depressing and foolish. The “Brights” (look how arrogant that term alone is!) are not too bright.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
DaddyGirl said:
There was a series of studies done on this topic that was all over the newspapers last year:
Seems they talk a lot about the “needing” or “not needing” of religion.

**
Religious People Branded As Less Intelligent Than Atheists In Provocative New Study**

huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/religious-people-less-intelligent-atheists_n_3750096.html

Atheists ‘have higher IQs’: Their intelligence 'makes them more likely to dismiss religion as irrational and unscientific’

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395972/Atheists-higher-IQs-Their-intelligence-makes-likely-dismiss-religion-irrational-unscientific.html

(PS–i tried to post the link reporting on the same study from two conservative, religious sources but both sources would not let me access their links).

.
Click to expand...
Bishop Fulton Sheen taught the one should not just listen to what someone says: they should also pay attention to why someone says it. When these studies are used to bash religious beliefs, instead of debating whether these religious beliefs are true or not, based on experience, evidence, rational argument, or a trustworthy authority, the opponent often assumes that religion is “obviously wrong” and then searches for reasons why someone would believe in it (in this case, they are stoopider than us Brights 😛 ). They simply beg the question. When debating the truth of a claim, one should be focused on the claim itself, not on the type of person who believes it (New Agers often believe in evolution, that doesn’t mean that we can dismiss evolution based on some wacko beliefs 😃 ).

The claim that, “we have more smart (define smart) people on our side, therefore we’re right” is just as dubious (although it can be considered an appeal to a trustworthy authority).

These studies, in particular, have no purpose in the arguments for religious beliefs. Just because someone thinks they do not need religion, this doesn’t mean anything to whether the claims of certain religions are actual true, or not. In fact, if Catholicism is true, then regardless of whether you think you need it or not, you will need it, since the Church teaches you DO need it.

Christi pax,

Lucretius
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top