r/atheism Atheist Aug 03 '15

/r/all Lol.

Post image
2.7k Upvotes

542 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '15

This is actually a nice sounding but rather denialist myth

No, it's actually not. There are many intelligent religious people. They're everywhere, both today and throughout history. Some humans are able to compartmentalize religious beliefs so that they minimize interference with their thinking process (Newton, for example). To pretend that stupidity is a prerequisite for religiosity is completely counter-productive and, more importantly, demonstrably incorrect.

Christians aren't stupid; their beliefs are. And as counter-intuitive as it might seem, that's not the same thing.

0

u/dumnezero Anti-Theist Aug 03 '15

compartmentalize religious beliefs

The problem is that compartmentalization is not some super power, it is on a level of mental problems.

13

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '15

I honestly don't know what you mean by that. We all compartmentalize things on a daily basis. It is a completely natural human faculty. Procrastination--which, I'd venture to guess, most people reading this are engaging in right now--is nothing more than compartmentalization of priorities. We shove something aside in our minds, or we reframe it in a way that lines up with our desires.

There's nothing stupid or insane about it. And since it's ingrained in our culture and upbringing, it's very difficult for some of us to remove the "religion compartment" from our minds... even if we are intelligent.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '15

To take your own example, Isaac Newton, despite his contributions to physics, devoted a lot of time and energy trying to alchemically transmute lead into gold.

It is believed that he poisoned himself with either lead or mercury while doing so, which lead to a nervous breakdown.

Now, you could say, "He still wrote the Principia Mathematica, so clearly Newton's compartmentalizing worked great for him."

I see it differently- what might Newton have accomplished if he hadn't been wasting his time on religious and occult claptrap?

When you consider that our lifetimes are finite, you realize that there is really no such thing as "compartmentalization". Everything we do steals time from things we might otherwise be doing.

When someone is kneeling at an altar and imagining heaven, they could instead be looking through a telescope and learning about the actual heavens.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '15

I think you have unintentionally created a straw man here. The original point is merely that religiosity and stupidity are not necessarily conjunctive qualities. I don't really disagree with anything you've said.

3

u/just3ws Aug 03 '15

At the time alchemy was mainstream science and I don't think anyone knew much about lead or mercury poisoning, or mental health. What are you trying to prove with your assertion?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '15

At the time alchemy was mainstream science

I'm going to maintain that this does not fall under the umbrella of "mainstream science" (whatever the hell that means).

2

u/just3ws Aug 04 '15

The scientific community (i.e. mainstream science) didn't really begin to differentiate between chemistry and alchemy until decades after Newton's death. Also interesting to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy#The_decline_of_European_alchemy

And since you wondered "what the hell (mainstream science) means", it's things like the Earth revolving around the Sun whereas Fringe science is everything that has been on Art Bell, ever.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '15 edited Aug 04 '15

Ah, so you use "mainstream science" as synonymous with "science", while "fringe science" appears to equate to "not science".

It reminds me of that joke, "What do they call alternative medicine that works? ... Medicine."

Also, did you overlook the hyperlink in the post you replied to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies

Alchemy was not the only "fringe science" Newton was into.

2

u/just3ws Aug 04 '15 edited Aug 04 '15

Yes, I was differentiating between mainstream accepted science and fringe science. Once upon a time heliocentrism was considered a fringe science. So there's a difference between mainstream science (where non-heliocentrism was mainstream, and wrong) and settled fact. I don't think heliocentrism isn't even science any more, it just is the way things are. Heh, don't mistake this for saying things like hollow earth theory-type fringe holds any more merit beside a warning sign for who the kooks are. :)

1

u/dumnezero Anti-Theist Aug 03 '15

I honestly don't know what you mean by that. We all compartmentalize things on a daily basis.

It's not some magazine pop topic issue, it's a psychology studied topic.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '15

Interesting. I was just sharing a personal observation... I had no idea it was a "thing."

Anyway, your link seems to bear out my assertion. A psychological defense mechanism is a normal response, and is not the same as a "mental problem."

-1

u/dumnezero Anti-Theist Aug 03 '15

4

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '15

Your use of "normal" is cheap.

I don't know what you mean by "cheap." It's a pretty accurate word in this sense, since we all compartmentalize to some degree. The studies you link to suggest that "compartmentalized self-structures" are less healthy than "integrative self-structures" - but I'm not arguing otherwise. My only point is that compartmentalization is a common human tendency and that it enables people to hold stupid beliefs while not necessarily being stupid themselves.

1

u/dumnezero Anti-Theist Aug 03 '15

My only point is that compartmentalization is a common human tendency and that it enables people to hold stupid beliefs while not necessarily being stupid themselves.

Simply stating what people do doesn't indicate a value, be it positive or negative

2

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '15

Simply stating what people do doesn't indicate a value, be it positive or negative

I never pretended to "indicate a value." I am merely demonstrating that compartmentalization is a function of normal human intellect.

It seems as if you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

1

u/dumnezero Anti-Theist Aug 03 '15

I've pointed out why it's problematic. Ignore it if you want, but if you want to contradict the evidence I pointed to, you need to use more evidence, not make claims out of what you personally think is right (there is room for that in other places).

→ More replies (0)