> The idea that Intelligence + Education == Secularism 100% of the time is kind of sad, because there is so much to be gained from reading religious texts and religious philosophy.
First of all, correlation is not causation. Education does not get you to secularism, but secular societies happen to be more educated. And gaining by reading and studying religious texts does not imply believing in them. You can consider them beautiful and worth preserving and at the same time believe they do not explain reality or contain many (original) insights.
>The most extreme levels of average education correspond with the highest level of secularization in the Nordic countries
>I see this opinion a lot, and it bothers me.
This is not an opinion, it is a statement of fact. And quite honestly, there's a big difference between reading religious texts and extracting philosophical value, and actually believing in magic sky fairies or some such. Regardless of the value of any particular incidental trappings of religion, the fundamental defining feature is the belief in some form of nonsense. Otherwise it's merely "philosophy".
> Do you believe that becoming religious made you smarter / more aware
As in it's equipped me with mental models to understand which components of secular life are acts of faith & ritual vs reason.
> 'secular world' is perhaps not as centrally organised as you may believe or wish for
Nor is it uniform. But there are some overt and some covert aspects. the covert forces benefit from being nebulous.
One reason religions are so open to attack is that they have a clear identity and value system (not necessarily good, but at least clearly stated). If you think about it, you can have a healthier relationship with a religious opponent– as long as you have equal power, you can oppose each other in a healthy way.
The secular world is applying all sorts of demands & social pressures on you, and there's no way to oppose them, because secular ideology doesn't have an identity, an institution or value system open to attack. It's like fighting smoke or a swarm of bees.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
I don't think that's necessarily true though. Religion is synthetic: it's practice, it's discipline and existence is rooted in how easily it can be synthesized in different communities. Man can exist without knowledge of God: that's the very premise that fueled colonialism and, to an extent, feudalism.
> I don't think it's possible to be a young-earth creationist and still believe in education and progress. The cognitive dissonance is just too great.
I have spent more than half my life being an evangelical christian where this was the dominant beliefs. Our youth leader was successful in the fashion industry, our 'worship' leader was a top-level manager at a big bank, and our members included quite a few realtors, the owner of one of the largest jewelry stores, and one of the elders (the non-paid pastors) was a high-level mathematician. I think he even won a prize once for solving some problem.
I'm not saying that there is no correlation between education level or intelligence and 'crazy fundamental religious beliefs', but your statement is just wrong.
If there's one thing I learned from my religious background, it's that humans have an amazing capacity to believe crazy things and be highly skilled, educated and intelligent. I often try to remind myself of this whenever I'm too certain of something, because if I could've been so utterly wrong once, how big are the chances that I could be incredibly wrong again?
And perhaps my mistakes are more subtle and harder to figure out now precisely because I find myself in the majority these days.
I find it interesting that you seem to contrast religiosity with your definition of intelligence. In my experience, the two are not inversely correlated.
Disclaimer: I have a PhD in computer science and I am a practicing Christian, so I'm clearly biased here :)
> Becoming more religious has helped me identify religious tendencies in the secular world.
Do you believe that becoming religious made you smarter / more aware, or that it made you more eager to seek reassuring comparisons outside your religion?
> The secular world would benefit from adopting more formal definitions of their belief system.
Benefit whom? The 'secular world' is perhaps not as centrally organised as you may believe or wish for. (We meet at the Fox & Hound every second Wednesday.) Whether this is inconvenient for members of the secular world, members of various fantasy clubs, or both - is hard to say.
Personally I don't feel that a codification of my understanding of the universe (I struggle to think of it as a belief system, as that has connotations of faith and rigidity in the absence of evidence) is necessary. I do undeniably like the idea that my understanding of the universe (roughly) aligns, AFAICT, with that of other intelligent people I know, or whose works I see or read - but I'm not sure that's the same thing.
> If you believe you are not religious, it just means that you don’t have the cognitive tools to recognize the secular ideology that you have adopted.
Do you accept that perhaps intentionally non-religious people may not be as dumb as that assertion demands?
> Ultimately, secular thought (agnosticism and atheism included) is just an inferior product compared to religions. It doesn't provide out-of-the-box answers to these really hard questions and as a result can be a very scary and lonely ideology.
I'm not sure that it's the job of philosophy to construct comforting fairy tales, if it actually is the case that life has no inherent meaning or purpose.
At best, it can give you a guide to construct your own meaning.
>religion--the motive behind most western art and history, be it protagonist or antagonist. can't talk about it though--massive black hole in any sort of humanities education.
Went to a public school in California. We learned plenty about religion, of all kinds. We even read parts of the Bible during literature class. Perhaps you should re-examine your assumptions.
> I recommend religion and religious teachings which address this and many other daily worldly issues perfectly.
This advice simply doesn't work if the recipient is an atheist.
To me, Religious texts are made up fiction that hold no more meaning in my world view than Harry Potter or Game of Thrones. If you read enough fiction on a shared topic, you'll be able to pull the same number of 'enlightening' quotes from those books as religious people can from their own sacred tomes.
However, IF you are a religious person, and find meaning in your religious books, then take the win, and enjoy that path. It's just that it's not a path everyone can take.
>I wish secular folk could see and appreciate all the good that religion does.
Secular folk disagree that religion is an optimal, or even necessary, way to do that good.
Specifically, religion as it relates to and requires a belief in the supernatural, and in the precedence of the supernatural over the natural. You can walk the straight and narrow path without the carrot of eternal salvation or the stick of eternal damnation.
First of all, correlation is not causation. Education does not get you to secularism, but secular societies happen to be more educated. And gaining by reading and studying religious texts does not imply believing in them. You can consider them beautiful and worth preserving and at the same time believe they do not explain reality or contain many (original) insights.
reply