Several times this week I’ve seen religious people dismissed for intellectual laziness. The idea that religious people ascribe to their doctrines solely through blind faith is a very popular conception. I’ve certainly seen many examples of this stereotype in my lifetime, and in any people group as inclusive as “religious”, you’re bound to find examples of almost anything. Overwhelmingly, though, many of the most thoughtful and critical people I’ve met have been religious.
Though there have been rare exceptions, my general experience of the difference between the religious and non-religious is not intellectual rigor, but humility. Religious scientists and researchers I have known are particularly aware of the limits of human abilities and knowledge, and though they attempt to stretch those boundaries on a daily basis, they realize it is an intense wrestling match. The non-religious people I’ve known, on the other hand, tend (with some exceptions) to be strident in their views and feel that anyone who disagrees with them is intellectually shabby or perhaps even diabolical.
Have you ever noticed it’s often the most insecure people who trumpet their superiority most loudly?
February 13, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Hmmm… religious people are thoughtful and critical huh? I guess it’s possible. But I often feel the opposite… that religious people aren’t exercising critical thinking skills enough. But then, the same applies to most non-religious people.
So what’s with the name poppies?
February 14, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Ah, see, your formulation is critically different than mine; I didn’t say most religious people I’ve known were thoughtful and critical, but rather vice versa.
As for the name poppies, that shall remian veiled in mystery…
February 14, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Ah, yes, that is an important distinction that I missed. I guess I can summarize your argument as:
1) claim: religious people aren’t intellectually lazy
2) support: the most intellectually active people you know are religious
3) support: most religious people are humble, which can seem less “intense” and therefore lazy
4) support: those who seem intellectually active are often just highly opinionated (and possibly insecure)
Hmmm… I guess that still makes sense, though some of the points are debatable (e.g. religious people are more humble). I guess there is another distinction that is important. There are “cool” religious people (I need a better word for this — but these poeple are open, humble, honest, thoughtful people), and “uncool” religious people (who are hateful, close-minded, spiteful, arrogant, etc.). The “uncool” kind are the ones who tend to be more visible… a sad situation if you ask me.
On the topic of thoughtful and critical people being religious, Dallas Williard (who is both a critical thinker and religious) recently gave an interesting talk on the topic of spirituality and the academic world — basically talking about how the academic world does not take spirituality seriously.
http://dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=126
February 14, 2007 at 7:36 pm
You’ve pretty much understood my point, but apparently I need to blog with greater clarity!
Support 2 - dead on
Support 4 - dead on
Support 3 - not so much: I wouldn’t say most religious people are humble, just that when looking for distinguishing factors between the actively religious and the actively non-religious (not simply indifferent), it seems humility is found in greater amounts in the former, at least in my anecdotal experience.
Looks like dwillard.org is making the blogroll!
February 18, 2007 at 8:54 am
a great post. i think we all need to recognize that we are merely human and have limitation. but at the same time we are to use the gift of our mind. we shouldnt blindly leap, but we also shouldnt only live off of our reason.
peter