The religious suffer from intellectual laziness.
Intelligent design, creationism, denial of evolution and the Big bang theory; Religion requires faith, which necessitates the abandonment of questions. Does religion really advocate unquestioning belief in the "holy scriptures" rather than encouraging people to think for themselves? Is religion an obstacle on he road to knowledge? Or does religion actually provoke one to think about the greater questions in life?
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
If you really want to know, find out!
Religion answers many questions. It is easy to stop right there and accept them at face value. But I believe more often than not it takes a bit more curiosity and patience to find the truth.
Genesis explains the creation of life as we know it. Sure, but maybe it isn't complete. Let's listen to some more ideas about how life may have come to be. Then maybe you can see that it is a matter of slow evolution over millions of years. So it is all a matter of intellectual laziness!
Religion and scientific questioning are not mutually exclusive, becasue they answer different types of question. Science may give ideas of how the world was created, but will never give a satisfactory account of why. Genesis is a pre scientific attempt to explain the creation of the world, but most religious people regard it as a myth. The real purpose of religion is to answer those metaphysical questions about the nature of the world that science does not, and is not meant to, answer.
There is also no reason that the creation story could also be true aswell as evolution, it does not say how God created every single animal individualy and so evolution could be a part of the method exersized by God to create all the differnt walks of life.
If religion is a matter of intellectual laziness, then from what i read there on the other side of this argument is a matter of intellectual blindness.
This debate is intellectually lazy.
The whole substance of this debate is based on a few major assumptions, which is by nature far lazier than coming to a decision after struggling through years of reasoning.
Firstly, the author has committed the classic error of including all ‘faiths’ and ‘religions’ into one small, easy to dispatch, category. Every single religion is totally different, and it is sheer, genuine laziness not to consider each separately.
Second, the author of this debate writes that faith provides comfortable answers that wish away questions and difficulties in the world. This is based firmly on the assumption that religion is in fact not a feasible answer to the questions of life and death. It is rather embarrassingly unwise to state that those who decide faith is an answer to these problems are ‘lazy’, when it seems far ‘lazier’ to never challenge the point of view stating that faith is an unacceptable answer. Perhaps faith is comforting, reassuring and strengthening precisely because it is in fact the truth; the very way in which humans are meant to exist! Ignoring the possibility of ‘religion’ is like seeing that 2 + 2 = 4, but not being happy with the answer because it is too ‘easy’.
And lastly, in concordance with one of the other ‘against’ arguments here; science and religion are not opposing ideas. It seems the author would be well advised to do some philosophical study; to rigorously, rather than lazily, look into the humanitarian and existential arguments for religion, rather than hide behind the non-existent shield of ‘science’!
There is lots more to say here, but for the purpose of this debate, I hope my general point is clear!
IQ is irrelevant
Religion is not about intellectual capacities. It is about the soul and what happens after death. Sure, some intellect is needed to discern the matters but a high IQ is not mandatory. Religion can be perceived at different intellectual levels.
It is also difficult as a believer not to doubt, no one can say they have never or don't doubt there own faith at times, because people have this thought pattern they can not be intellectualy lazy, as they are still thinking about both sides of the argument for Gods exsistance, but just relate more stongly towards one side.
Atheists also will not be falseifyed against, when people say there is a God, so from a believers side they are the ones that are more intellectualy lazy.
The issue is whether the religious are intellectually lazy, not whether they have intellectual capacity. laziness means not making use of one's capacity, whatever that capacity may be.
Despite the existence of counterexamples (e.g. buddhism), a central component of most major religions is indeed "blind faith", which is basically the same idea as "intellectual laziness".
There is a reason why its called "Faith"
Faith and intellectual capacity have very little to do with each other. Faith cannot be ascertained by an individual's mind.
True faith and intellectual capacity are not guaranteed to come together, but is that not exactly the point of this argument. Faith is far too often used to replace intelligence. Faith is blind people either have it or they don't, where as intelligence is something you can work at and improve. 'There is a reason its called faith' is not an argument and it is far too common an objection when a person incapable of supporting their argument is unwilling to even consider the other persons views. In short its arrogance and an invalid argument and an example of Ad hominem fallacy.
Don't tar everyone with the same brush
There are many clever people in the world. A lot of them happen to be religious too. Often people are capable of subscribing to a certain religion without letting it interfere in their daily intellectual pursuits.
Just because you are religious and may not question your own beliefs, it does not prevent intellectual discovery in other areas.
Buddhism positively urges that faith should not be blind.
In the words of The Buddha:
"Do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or with legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with conjecture or with logical inference or with weighing evidence or with liking for a view after pondering over it or with someone else’s ability or with the the thought "The monk is our teacher." When you know in yourselves: "These things are wholesome, blameless, commended by the wise, and being adopted and put into effect they lead to welfare and happiness," then you should practice and abide in them…"
What do you think?