Religious inflexibility- microcosmic zealotry?

[IVM]

Intellect is defined as the ability to learn and reason, the capacity for knowledge and understanding. It seems to me, though, that many self-described intellectuals show nothing short of inflexibility when it comes to discussing ideas that contradict their own or their beliefs. This is not limited to those of religion- it extends to those not of religion as well. The sign of this is anger, resentment, irritation, annoyance, or utter disregard at thoughts contrary to those beliefs of the kind of person in question.

So my question is this: are believers in a religion lacking in intellect, thus being inflexible and acting in a kind of zealotry?

I feel that if you believe strongly in something, you should welcome those who question it, because the arguments will either fail and make your faith stronger, cause you to learn and look at it in a new light, or force you to disprove them and thus bring light of truth to the person who is questioning you in the first place. Isn't this the basis of converting someone to the way of light, such as accepting Jesus as their savior?

[swill269]

:o
IVM,

to answer the question; i say yes. it is not a scholastic intellect but more of an overall mental deficiency to rationalize. predominately the inability to comprehend/value/respect/perceive any other mindset not in alignment with their's. it is this narrow minded behavior which inhibits their ability to grow and absorb new/different ideas.

the christian doctrine is gospel/absolute and leaves no room for growth and for an individual whom is burdend by change this is right up their alley. some folks had rather "fight than switch" even if it would be beneficial to make the change. IMO it is fear/weakness/insecurity which causes them to go the zealot route. i have often asked them; "who are you trying to convince, us or yourselves?". they are "convinced" we are the losers. there are many more "christians" which do not shun/convert/belittle me and my kind. i love these christians and they love me.
:cool:

[cabdmd]

Intellect is defined as the ability to learn and reason, the capacity for knowledge and understanding. It seems to me, though, that many self-described intellectuals show nothing short of inflexibility when it comes to discussing ideas that contradict their own or their beliefs.
I feel that if you believe strongly in something, you should welcome those who question it, because the arguments will either fail and make your faith stronger, cause you to learn and look at it in a new light, or force you to disprove them and thus bring light of truth to the person who is questioning you in the first place.

The attitude of inflexibility does not stem from an unwillingness to reason but rather that the issue is beyond reason. You can have all the opinion about gravity that you wish, but if you jump off the roof you will fall.
The reason I brought up the other post about Nebuchadnezzar was because he had absolute power over his subjects and conquered all of his known world. Yet when he said bow down and worship the 90 foot tall gold image of him that he had made (talk about pride and ego). These guys said stuff it. We only worship God. The king had a dream and wanted to know the interpetation and asked all the wise men to tell him. They said tell us the dream and we'll tell you the meaning. He said if you are so wise tell me both the dream and the meaning or you are dead meat. Well he started having these guys killed and Daniel was in line for the same treatment when he said wait, let me pray and get back to you. So he did. Daniel said there is a God and He has made known to me the dream and the meaning. Needless to say the king was blown away, and he acknowledged God for that. Some things are way beyond our comprehension.

[darjeeling]

Religion works fine in its proscribed areas. In fact, its all that will work. When you try to extend it to where logic prevails, you get some serious problems. The soviets had their religion of communism, and we all know where and how that ended. We need religion or something similar to cope with what is unkowable by man. That realm is vast, and any consistent approach to it will form a religion of sorts (sorry for my extention of the term, but it works). If you try to cope with reality by using religion, there are bound to be problems. That said, I beleive the problem lies not with religion but with the ease which with some of its adherants extend religon to where it doesn't belong. To be blunt, wherever logic is applicable, religion will ultimately lose to logic. However, logic has its limits, and there are places logic will never be able to analyze. That is where religion can and must operate.

[IVM]

Originally posted by swill269@Mar 31 2005, 05:55 PM
:o
IVM,

the christian doctrine is gospel/absolute and leaves no room for growth and for an individual whom is burdend by change this is right up their alley. some folks had rather "fight than switch" even if it would be beneficial to make the change. IMO it is fear/weakness/insecurity which causes them to go the zealot route. i have often asked them; "who are you trying to convince, us or yourselves?". they are "convinced" we are the losers. their are many more "christians" which do not shun/convert/belittle me and my kind. i love these christians and they love me.

Swill, by no means do I believe that the Christian doctrine leaves no room for growth. Nor do I believe that the religious have no "intellect" in the area of reason. I admit that SOME do, and hence why I ask the questions.

[IVM]

Originally posted by darjeeling@Mar 31 2005, 08:02 PM
Religion works fine in its proscribed areas. In fact, its all that will work. When you try to extend it to where logic prevails, you get some serious problems. The soviets had their religion of communism, and we all know where and how that ended. We need religion or something similar to cope with what is unkowable by man. That realm is vast, and any consistent approach to it will form a religion of sorts (sorry for my extention of the term, but it works). If you try to cope with reality by using religion, there are bound to be problems. That said, I beleive the problem lies not with religion but with the ease which with some of its adherants extend religon to where it doesn't belong. To be blunt, wherever logic is applicable, religion will ultimately lose to logic. However, logic has its limits, and there are places logic will never be able to analyze. That is where religion can and must operate.
Well, logic is just a system of reasoning or the study of the principles of reasoning, the structure of propositions, etc.

Daniel's answer to Nebuchadnezzar was not beyond reason- the reason was simple. God told him.

[YourLocalNerd]

I was gonna stay outta this but with the direction this thread has taken, I do have a few things to say.

IVM, I don't frequent this sub-forum much so I probly haven't read all your posts here, and I know that we do disagree on a lot of issues, but everything I have read of yours, you're always peaceful and civil. That is refreshing, and I appreciate it.

And to address your question(s). are believers in a religion lacking in intellect, thus being inflexible and acting in a kind of zealotry?

Overall, no. Since pretty much the only specific religion that has been brought up while discussing this, I will answer from a Christian perspective. I do think that some other religions would have a few small differences though.

The very definition of intellect that you posted, is necessary in most religions. Christianity is not just a sign that you wear, or a hat you put on, nor is it a mantra that is said every morning. A Christian must learn daily about his religion; more specifically he must learn more about his God. In that learning, comes knowledge and through reasoning of that knowledge comes understanding. I also think one could define that entire process as growth.

Are there zealots? Sure! I would dare say every religion and walk of life there are zealots (definition: Zealot - A fanatically committed person). (enter team here) basketball fan, or football fan, or even a workaholic can truly be defined as a zealot. But that doesn't mean every member of any given religion is a zealot, nor does it make everyone watching the super bowl a zealot. The question is, does the fact that a person chooses to be a "zealot" of whatever religion, does that make them weak minded? Again, I say no. Can a zealot be weak minded yes, but again that doesn't mean they all or even a majority of them are. In terms of religious zealots, the level of commitment, faith, and devotion (all of which usually include the growth process I spoke of earlier) required would illude to that a zealot is one who is not weak minded.

That said, I am not saying that every Christian or member of whatever religion is inherently more intellectual than everyone else. Everyone is different and one's level of intellect isn't based on what religion they are; if they are at all.

I feel that if you believe strongly in something, you should welcome those who question it, because the arguments will either fail and make your faith stronger, cause you to learn and look at it in a new light, or force you to disprove them and thus bring light of truth to the person who is questioning you in the first place. Isn't this the basis of converting someone to the way of light, such as accepting Jesus as their savior?

You pretty much hit the nail on the head there ;) I love debating my beliefs (my wife would say I love it a bit too much lol). But I rarely see occasion to here. As I am sure you have noticed, no debate here has stayed civil/respectful for long at all. And that is an envirnment that I avoid b/c it is not a productive one. http://www.truerepublic.org/forums/html/emoticons/ernaehrung004.gif

Sorry for the book ;)

http://www.truerepublic.org/forums/html/emoticons/ernaehrung004.gif

[IVM]

Thanks, the reply was refreshingly calm compared to most of the ones made so far in this thread. ;)

I'm far from perfect- all humans are fallible, and I'm no exception. On rare occassions I will let my emotions guide my words but I try my best to limit myself to true debate- an exchange of ideas in which one attempts to persuade the other that their viewpoint is correct. At the base of that is one of the noblest of all intellectual pursuits:

An exchange of ideas.

To me, my faith is simple. I have faith in God and do my best to love all and judge none, and to convince others to do the same. What happened and when is a matter of history, and is otherwise irrelevant. The past is gone; there is only the now and the future. If you can prove to me there is no God, then there must not be one. But that's not something that can be proven. How old the Earth is, where we came from, that's all a matter of debate and can eventually be proven one way or another through the boundaries of logic, and should have nothing to do with your faith.

Thanks for your reply- I appreciate the refreshing viewpoint. I should have been a little more specific in the question of contention I posed, but this one is good enough.. for now. :)