How would an american presidential candidate handle the “Christianity” issue, if he was not really religious himself? I have been asking myself this question, while I have a hard time seeing Barack Obama as truly Christian, the obvious intelligent being he is. I am not stating in any way, that a religious person is not intelligent per definition. There is a lot people in history that proves the opposite. But as a strong non-believer myself, I have a really hard time imagining how anyone, grown up in a modern society, can honestly say to themselves that God exists as a divine being, listening to one’s prayers.
Perhaps Obama really is Christian, as he so proclaims. I certainly do not see him as a liar, although as a politician at his level, he must master the art of spin to some degree. Every modern American president has been Christian to some extend. Only some of the very earliest presidents, those known as the founding fathers was not clearly Christian, even though this is still discussed. Some is now labeled as Deist, which is as much non-religious someone can be while still being slight religious. But perhaps that was just a word atheist invented, in order not to let their mothers entirely down. Or perhaps it started something like this:
“So, what Church do you follow?”
“I’m not religious. I don’t really believe in god?”
“Huh?”
“I belive the truth lies in trial and error, proving and falsification.”
“Ok, listen there clearly IS a God jerk, but you like that science thingy too? that’s nice. I guess we could call that Deism”
Not only can the founding fathers religious view be questioned, but they were also rational enough not to include anything religious in the constitution, making it an entirely secular document. A very smart move, viewed in retrospect. By including religion in this document, they could have accelerated the Christian fundamentalism the country is struggling with today. Today however, in Americas current state it is hard to imagine a politician running for president, who is not Christian, and still having a shot at the post.
This makes me suspect that a rational non-believing person, that have the urge to change things for the better, might need to change the public perception of certain personal beliefs. And while religious belief is a highly intangible arbitrary phenomenon, this could be quite easy to fake, if one should feel the need. And maybe because I had the suspicion, and was looking for clues, I think i found them in Obamas book “The Audacity of Hope”. In a chapter about faith, he writes about his parents lack of such, and his upbringing without. As an explanation of why his grandparents weren’t religious he writes:
“My grandmother was always too rational and too stubborn to accept anything she couldn’t see, feel, touch, or count. My grandfather, the dreamer in our family, possessed the sort of restless soul that might have found refuge in religious belief had it not been for those other characteristics–an innate rebelliousness, a complete inability to discipline his appetites, and a broad tolerance of other people’s weaknesses – that precluded him from getting to serious about anything.”
“…This combination of traits – my grandmother’s flinty rationalism, my grandfather’s joviality and incapacity to judge others or himself too strictly….”
To me, these sections could possibly hint that Obama is not exactly a deep religious believer himself. And it is possible that he, while he is a self-proclaimed Christian, could have adopted those views (truly believing or not), knowing that did he not, he would not last long in politics. Perhaps Obama has this way even adopted Christianity because he is intelligent, and not in spite of.
It is a little scary to think about though, that USA seems more religious now, than when the country was founded. And why the presidential oath, need to be taken placing a hand on the bible is in itself quite scary. The constitution states “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust”. And the “so help me god” part of the presidential oath, is not part of the original oath.
Having a self proclaimed non Christian, or even better non religious believer as president would be the real Change, which I look forward too. But unfortunately this does not seem likely somewhere in the near future. That being said I think Obama is an extremely welcome trade off.
January 27th, 2009 at 20:14
You write: “I am not stating in any way, that a religious person is not intelligent per definition. There is a lot people in history that proves the opposite”
Sure, religious people are not stupid *per definition* (although believing in religion based on “faith” rather than “facts” does indicate towards it, I would argue), but I am curious about who you would mention from “history that proves the opporsite” in this context? Because I can’t, on the top of my head, mention any from the post-Darwin period.
I think it would be difficult to conclude that religious people are dumb, but easier to hypothesize that, dumber people are *more easily* drawn to religion. Perhaps due to the easier answer that religion provides vs. science and all it’s quantum mechanics theory, string theory and all the other things most of us (myself included) don’t understand. The “I have faith, therefore I believe” argument is much “easier” on the mind since no thought is needed (it actually seems counter-productive). As long as you have faith, facts become irrelevant, until they shake your faith, which only happens if you consider them, which you won’t do as long as you have faith… (and so on and so on, the argument is cyclical). As Helmuth Nyborg said it, and I agree with him, “My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical”.
Concerning religiosity and intelligence, studies have actually been made on the subject and almost consistently shown an *inverse* correlation between IQ and religiosity. You could check out a (simple) example here: http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001523.html and many other places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_I.Q. would be a good start) or search google for a wealth of information on the subject.
I suspect the above quote from Helmuth Nyborg is what you meant in what I quoted you for initially in this comment? I assume so because I am fairly certain you would if you change “a religious person” in your sentence with say “a person who believes the Chuch of the Flying Spaghetti Monster”, your answer would *not* be “there’s a lot of people in history that proves the opposite.” – and the reason it wouldn’t be that answer isn’t simply because there isn’t a lot of people who believe in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The reason your answer would change is, and correct me if I am mistaken, that there’s a mountain of better theories that make it “dumb” to believe is such non-sense.
So why treat older religions (or newer sects?) as though they are warranted, when there is the same almost non-existent amount of evidence it is true and there’s a better theory – the theory of evolution. Especially since a theory, I would argue, can reasonably be considered warranted when, of what is tries to explain, it explains MORE than it does NOT explain and explains more than any competing theory explain. An example would be that (Abrahamic-based at least) religion explains everything with God (God created everything), but then does not explain God, which in essence leaves the theory having explained nothing, only moved everything into one unexplained pot called God.
January 29th, 2009 at 20:16
I was strongly considering adding modern history to the mentioned line, but as I couldn’t either think of anybody in the top of my head from the post-Darwin period, I decided not to. To be completely honest, the reason why I added the line was merely not to appear intolerant of people with faith really, and in order not to make the post appear as another anti religious rant. The point I wanted to make was, that I suspect the presidency for American politicians without faith, is a closed country. So in order to get all the way, they need to appear as Christian believers, true or not.
August 26th, 2009 at 08:08
I think most atheists who believe must be ‘dumb’ do so because they themselves are neither as smart nor as well-informed as they imagine. Christianity is extremely rational and intellectually stimulating, if you have the wit to understand it.
But leaving that argument-without-an-ending aside, the question of Left politicians and Christianity really amuses me.
Left-politicians in the US nearly all claim to be Christians (even Hilary Clinton!!), and yet their supporters all clearly recognise, and often state openly, that this is a lie!
And yet, these guys still consider themselves to be the ‘principled’ faction in the country!
Ha ha! Gives me a wry smile…
February 13th, 2010 at 21:58
Hmm Religious people being dumber than the rest…. im not sure about that.
Being a firm nonbeliever, at least in the established world religions, i have meet a lot of religious people from again all the world religions, and i don’t think they are in general more stupid than the ateist, they simply made a choice in their lives, or a choice was made for them, which gives them the ability to explain,get to terms with lots of facets in life which they don’t understand.
It is a risky thing putting labels on people which are in this way putting them in the same box.
Intelligence is an extremely difficult thing to measure. Some very brainy scientists who studied the very fabric of communication claim that the intelligence of a species is measured in how complicated their language is, which in their research then means that the most intelligent species on this planet are dolphins, so be careful defining what intelligence is.
Religion is used by powerpeople with high educations to suppress people which hasn’t got as much insight and knowledge. That doesn’t make the underdogs stupid, just ignorant.
The majority of really religious people are poor people who have been dealt a bad hand in life, and their religion is a cornerstone in their life which can give them comfort and guidance.
We are all religious in the sence that we all have beliefs in some way or another. Some people belive in armageddon, some believe in the rebirth of Christ, some belive in Thor and Odin, some believe in the rise of stocks or houseprices, some believe in their own superiority and some believe in the good in people. It is all just belief which constantly is being tested by reality. So in some form we are all religious, it’s just different religions we commit ourselves to.