Can you be religious and intelligent?

galileo openly provoked the vatican, to garner fame
he was the og youtube drama king

Intelligence is a nebulous concept but being both intelligent and religious can occur, as seen in some of the pasts great thinkers. Not everyone is perfectly intelligent in all ways or applies logical principles to everything in life.

Define 'religion' first.

religion = N = NP

yes:

pic related was a christian

yes(2)

pic related was very religious

Being smart doesn't mean you can't be gullible.

yes(3)

pic related was very religious

yes(4)

pic related was a protestant

yes(5)

pic related was a religious jew

forgot pic:

yes(6)

yes(7)

Ramanujan was probably the most religeous of all and he lived in XXth century(his parents were Indian priests tho)

Science has nothing to do with belief you Mongolian faggot.

Theories are beliefs but based on reasons basically they can be proof or not some can believe in them because it's makes sense mathematical others have their own definitions.

Science is fact and not a belief system otherwise we wouldn't have retarded statement like yours

Fuck no, any logical reasonable person is smarter than all religious people. They could easily believe in the tooth fairy by their emotional logic.

>Science is fact
What is it like to be 13yo?

>any logical reasonable person is smarter than all religious people

Are you smarter than Godel? Where are your scientific works to prove this?

It's common to even adult scientists these days to believe that science is "facts". No one cares about the philosophical nature of science anymore.

See Gödel was just pretending in order to avoid prosecution.

The power of science is the falsifiability of any theory, that makes science a system that always heals itself from errors. The implication of this is that science never arrives anywhere, science is always moving and claiming that science found a "fact" would destroy the system entirely.

the 1950 inquisition was pretty rough.

I believe in Harry Potter.

no.
/thead.

...

Ever since pop-atheism religious people have officially been smarter than atheists.

No. Proof: look at /pol/.

Thomas Aquinas memorized the whole bible.

so yes

He was wrong about everything though. He just played a language game well, like Aristotle, being wrong about everything and sounding good in the process. That's why Catholicucks hold him up as "an intellectual giant" - they have to in order to keep their whole shibboleth from tumbling down.

Saying that science deals in facts is baldly self-contradictory. Think about what you're saying for one goddamn second.

>my perceived assessment of peoples' social and physical attractiveness, together with a reflexive contrarianism, allows me to officially pronounce that the group with a particular religious feeling (or lack thereof), which I perceive to be popular, is therefore wrong on those grounds - exactly because it is popular

>atheism is a popular view

>I am twenty-two years old and I have seen it all. Regular use of a notably contrarian website does not affect my judgment at all. I am right-

>it is not at all the case that I am in a first world country and am annoyed at the views of my peers, toward which I am thus relexively contrarian, because all told, the ways in which they annoy me, disturb me, because I have evidence that I am really not significantly smarter than any of them, however loathsome I might consciously find the admission to be. They would definitely not get their heads stabbed in Bangladesh, since their views are so 'popular'.

>as a contrarian, I am obliged to oppose the 'mainstream' view of atheism... wait, what?

Not him, but I thought about it, and my thoughts are that you're a retard for suggesting otherwise.

two words: Lemaitre and Mendel, you are an idiot OP

>t. popatheist

t. gets eviscerated and can only publish pictures of unattractive men in his own intellectual defense, thereby strengthening my own rhetoric.

You missed your opportunity to post a picture of a smug anime girl in immediate retort. Had you done that, then you might have achieved the upper hand, but the moment has passed.

What do you mean by "be religious"?

Some people use it as a moral compass, others use it as a science book that describes the workings of the world, still others use it as a banner to wave so they can be part of a club.

Also, what does it mean to "be intelligent"?
Are you asking us to assume what your definition is, then appease that?
Are you asking according to our unspecified definition?

yes but every religious scientist wasn't a fanatic about it

You can find anecdotal examples for all 4 of the combinations.

not-religious/not-intelligent
religious/not-intelligent
not-religious/intelligent
religious/intelligent

Quit name-dropping like you understand these peoples' faiths and intellects.

Why even ask if you already know the answer?

>they don't realize Jesus is the ideal abstracted from the most virtuous human behaviour
>they don't realize religion is the pillar which has held us together under one roof
what's it like leading a life of knowledge without purpose sciencefags?

...

Amusing that religiotards always cite scientists from centuries ago in response to threads like this, when even educated people were vastly more ignorant than today.

In answer to OP's question, you can either have an intellect worthy of respect, or you can have faith. You can't have both.

>you can either have an intellect worthy of respect, or you can have faith. You can't have both.
Yes, because Godel, Von Neumann, and Heisenberg, who all lived in the last 100 years, weren't worthy of respect. Using words like "religiotards" makes you look like a spastic, by the way.

Yes, but statistically speaking, atheists do have higher IQs.

All born more than 100 years ago. Thanks for proving my point. Your use of the word "spastic", which relates to muscle spasms rather than intellectual incapacity, betrays your ignorance and also the reason for your butthurt - you're a religiotard.

Is there any good evidence that god existing is less likely than him not existing?
pls cite relevant papers in science or nature in your answers

>which relates to muscle spasms rather than intellectual incapacity
you sound like such a typical arrogant, self-appointed intellectual

You sound like a butthurt religiotard who cannot form a coherent argument.

Science is just another form of religion. We can't know anything to be 100% true, whether it be God or the Big Bang.

Which god, m8? There are thousands of them. Which one are you referring to?

Yes we can, for instance we can know that we can't know anything to be 100% true is 100% true.

I'm not picky. Any that science has managed to model and gather evidence for/against will do.

Science does not waste time gathering evidence for or against the tooth fairy. Why would you expect it to do the same for something vastly more ridiculous?