Are people really stupid to believe in God?
Angela Saini
Thursday, 19 February 2009 23:35 UTC
I was waiting for a bus on Oxford Street yesterday and saw one of those buses with the slogan, “There definitely is a God, so join the Christian Party and enjoy your life”… It’s the one that retaliated to the “There is probably no God” bus campaign. This is what prompts this post.
I am a rational, scientific person, who reads widely and am not (particularly) ignorant. I believe evolution explains the diversity of life on earth, I accept the big bang theory and I bow to the wisdom of science. Yet I still can’t understand why so many scientists treat people who believe in God like ignoramuses who haven’t read any book other than the Bible. In between the crazy religious fanatics and the atheists (both of whom now have their own bus ads) there are billions of people who simply admit not to know, and probably err on the side of feeling that there might be some meaning to life, or some higher power.
A recent cover story in New Scientist suggested that religious beliefs are kind of like vestigial superstitions, left over from a time when we were all to thick to understand that thunder wasn’t sent by some angry deity to scare us.
But are people really stupid to believe in God? I reserve judgment. Does that make me stupid too?
-
Replies
-
Yet I still can’t understand why so many scientists treat people who believe in God like ignoramuses who haven’t read any book other than the Bible
There’s no monopoly on thuggish, boorish, unthinking, ill-reasoned stupidity, Angela. Scientists are as prone to it as anyone else. Some of these people are powerless, acne-ridden little numpties who follow Richard Dawkins because it makes them feel big and powerful. Rather as if they had joined the Hitler Youth. What they don’t understand is that they have misunderstood the very nature of science, but they’re too thick to realize that. Creationists deserve our pity – but the Dawkins Youth, who are equally stupid, can be treated more roughly. Just tell them to piss off and leave you alone, and it’s not your fault if they have no girlfriend, no penis and no life.
Or, to put it more omnibustically …
-
-
How interesting. There has been alot of stir lately at Dr. Isis’ page about this, too. (She shared a little about her Catholic faith). I was shocked by the number of people who just slammed her, how could she be such a ‘good’ scientist and still believe in God. As if the two idea(l)s couldn’t be occupied simultaneously.
I’m a Scientist and a Christian, but ecumenical. I accept there is a God and that others believe in God/a diety. Though I’m no religious scholar, I’m willing to wager if we all sat down, I’m sure we’re aiming for the same thing and that these different names/traditions/etc are probably the same God/serve similar purposes of building community, doing good, etc.
-
I ended up, out of frustration due to many young skeptically-minded people making the knee-jerk assumption that ‘skepticism equals atheism’ (including doing interviews where they made no distinction between the two whatsoever – is that meant to be good promotion?) – doing a blog interview on it with a former fundamentalist Christian turned atheist who works as a psychologist.
It’s on my site and is called The Deist Skeptic: Not A Contradiction
I quite enjoyed reading the blog of Dr Isis and her accounts too.
-
Henry (as usual) you are so right. Maybe one day we’ll all have our own bus ads, and mine will say “I just don’t know”.
I recall very recently watching an episode of the Sunday morning show Big Questions with Nicky Campbell, where the audience were discussing Darwinism. It’s the kind of show in which the producers seem to have trawled a mental institution for panelists.
So it was in this episode… One smug, grinning scientist (I can’t remember who, sorry) berated everyone in the audience who gave even the vaguest impression of being religious. Even though I completely agreed with his science, it was embarrassing, actually, to watch him. And I began to feel a little ashamed for him, for being so condescending. If the public don’t like scientists, then now I know why.
-
@ K Sturgess – thanks for that link!
@ Angela – following on from K Sturgess’ link, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that the hardline atheists comprise a small minority of scientists, and that most
(1) have some vague notion of a God
(2) haven’t thought about the question
(3) have thought about the question and find that atheism is untenable scientifically
(4) don’t care.(If you want me, you can find me in category 3). However, when broadcasters want a scientist to talk about faith, they tend to go for the hardline atheists because they make the most noise and are thus easiest to find.
-
Wow! It feels so good to know that I am not alone!
I keep up with the discussions at Science Blogs, and my impression has always been that some of the fanatics in there are no better than religious fanatics, both groups can be so closed minded! -
People are stupid, by virtue of ongoing transformation from monkey to man. So, they believe in many stupid things, and do many nonsense stuff.
God, religion are only natural in this setting.
-
I don’t think if people should be considered stupid to believe in a god but, many studies show that people with higher IQ’s have a greater tendency to not believe in gods or other supernatural things.
We don’t know how life started. That’s a fact. But does that automatically mean it was magic? No. It just means we don’t know. Maybe one day we will. There was a time when every human on this planet believed that Earth was flat. Did that make the correct?
The problem for me is that the believers seem to think it’s their life mission to make everyone else believe and to make it a part of government and laws. That forces the non-believers to become activists. When it has an effect on your life and rights, it’s very hard to turn a blind eye.
-
Interesting discussion! Probably a little late but I think some good points have been made here.
Just thought I’d add this trend of hardline atheism (and deism) is rather anti-social more than anything else – it generally excludes the majority of people with moderate views who see no reason to continually argue that black is not always white.
I often find it difficult not to try and point out such irregularities and rash generalisations (politely) but the embarrassed silence that follows after the usual:“I’m right”
“Are you sure that isn’t a little extreme?”
“No, I’m right because of 1. 2. etc”
“Well, you know someone could argue that 1. 2. etc. are not the whole story”
“No, will you listen, I’m RIGHT, I’ve told you because…”
etc. etc.is deafening. Afterwards I feel I should apologise for attempting to play devils advocate for a (hopefully vaguely) moderate line of thought and successfully making a mountain out of a molehill.
Unfortunately I get the feeling that if we always try to avoid conflict (and thus the obligatory embarrassed silence) the only views that will be acted upon will be those that shout the loudest. But who could be trusted to arbitrate? Maybe those that don’t always trust their own judgement would be the best judges! Bring on Douglas Adams’ ruler/ruleress of the universe…
-
