Minor irritation

[avevale_intelligencer]

This, recommended by a tweeting telynor, is actually not a bad article on why America seems to have been governed for so long by people who don't seem to be that smart. Have a look and try and see where I almost gave up on it in disgust.

Religion does *not* make you stupid. That is a cheap shot almost unparalleled itself in its stupidity, and no-one who writes from a secularist point of view seems to be able to resist it. It's like saying that most American chocolate is disgusting because Americans have no taste. It's offensive and untrue all at the same time, and we know it, but it appeals to the meanness and smugness in our nature.

Religion does not make people stupid. *People* make people stupid. And the people who make people stupid are often themselves quite clever, and realise that (a) keeping people stupid means they (the smart ones) can do what they like, and (b) if they hide behind a religion, other smart people will see what they're doing and, rather than blaming the smart ones, will blame the stupid people for being stupid because they are religious.

It is staggeringly naïve to imagine that the Southern Baptist Convention supported slavery and segregation because its members actually thought it was God's will, and I don't think even the writer of the article believes that for one minute...and yet he can't resist taking a mean, smug little crack at religion on his way. If the American educational system fails, it is because it is made to fail. Fundamentalist religion is just one tool that is used to that end, and one of its functions is to be the scapegoat.

So how do apparently stupid people get into positions of power? Well, strangely enough, that isn't God's will either. This is where the writer finds his way back to common sense and makes some good points. There *is* an American myth that honesty and decency are fundamentally incompatible with intelligence, that "book-larnin'" is conducive to sneakiness and moral turpitude, that the path of honour is to stride down the middle of Main Street and face your enemy head-on, hands hovering over your holsters and brain in neutral, prepared to draw on the word of command and not one split-second earlier. It goes back much further than McCarthyism, I think, and has echoes in other cultures. We have our "play up, play up and play the game" ethos, or we used to, but while we never believed being clever was a requirement, I don't think we ever seriously made it into a bad thing.

But the myth is no more than a myth, as those early Americans could testify who practised the art of camouflage and took pot shots from cover at the Redcoats marching down the middle of the road in their silly uniforms. And when stupid people get into power, the place to look is just behind them, where lurk the smart people who are yanking their strings; who are keeping people stupid, making sure future generations grow up stupid, perpetuating the myth that makes them *proud* to be stupid, and holding up Christianity as a shield in the knowledge that other smart people, despite their smartness, will look no further in placing the blame.

If Obama wins the election, he will have a chance, as Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton did, to strike a blow against the pervasive myth--to prove that he is no figurehead--and also to live up to his promises in the field of education. If he can do this, it will be that much harder for the smart people who have hidden behind Bush for the last eight years, and hope to hide behind McCain and then Palin, to work their trick again. I do not think he will waste his time attacking religion; I certainly hope not. Because if we believe, as I think the writer of this article believes, that Barack Obama is an intelligent, educated, knowledgeable man, then that in itself is the ultimate crushing refutation of the smug, mean little canard that "religion makes you stupid."

Comments

[the-gwenzilliad.livejournal.com]

I wasn't thrilled with that bit of the article, no. I did enjoy the first bit, though.

[soren-nyrond.livejournal.com]

one adult in five believes the sun revolves round the earth; only 26% accept that evolution takes place by means of natural selection; two-thirds of young adults are unable to find Iraq on a map; two-thirds of US voters cannot name the three branches of government; the maths skills of 15-year-olds in the US are ranked 24th out of the 29 countries of the OECD

Sun<>earth == How many of them feel the need to worry about such things ?
evolution == What is "natural" about selection by gun, where hunters wipe out an eco-section (like mountain gorillas) ?
Iraq == The only person who needs to find Iraq on a map is someone planning on dropping a bomb on it. Otherwise you just need to follow signs in an airport.
3 branches == Are they like the four food groups: crunchy, warm, spicy and ice-cream ?
Maths skills == what was the maths skill of the person who formulated that statistic ? I think we should be told.

one in four of the state's state school biology teachers believed humans and dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time == Hello: coelocanth !! Hello, komodo dragon !! More puissantly: Hello, chicken ? Unregenerate (if evolutionarily developed) sauropod.

...there will be political opportunities for people, like Bush and Palin ... -- GOOD :: that is democracy, where Bill Boaks and Lord Sutch have as muich right to let their views be know as the darlings of the "over-educated pinko establishment".


If this person honestly believes that s/he is right to demand that, before you can stand for President, you and all those who support you have to demonstrate a certain level of edumiffication, how long will it before before (per Godwin's Rule) they demand adherence to a Cartain Moral Compass (the direction of the arrow of which is, of course, known only to the Certain Few -- fundamentalism writ large) ?

I now see some use for Boris Johnson.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, so do I, but it's getting him to prop open the door for the appropriate length of time.

As for the rest of it, well, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Elect a smart leader, and you elect that leader. Elect an apparently stupid leader, and you elect someone you've never heard of and will never see on television, who was never nominated, whose identity is hidden behind the dummy and whose intentions and principles (if any) can never be questioned.

Democracy means everyone has a right to express their views and to choose their leaders. Democracy should not be taken to mean any old body can effectively govern a country. That view is indefensible. True democracy should mean that the people get to choose a leader from among the people who are best qualified to do the job that the people want done.

The vote for figurehead is down the hall and turn left; here, we're choosing a captain. And pace W S Gilbert, it would be nice if s/he knows something about running a ship.

That, at least, is what I think.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

On the first three things in your first paragraph I pretty much agree. Most people have no need to have any opinion on those things. It doesn't matter at all whether the sun actually rises or the Earth turns to bring it into view, all that matters is that it gets brighter and warmer. It doesn't make any difference at all in daily life whether life evolved out of muddy seawater or was created bam 5 minutes ago. And if you really want to know where Iraq is then you look on TV (it's in the news enough that there's bound to be a picture fairly soon with nice clear colours) -- as for many other modern countries I have no idea of where they are or even if they exist or have the same name this week.

Knowing the branches of your government is rather more important, but even that has not much relevance to ordinary people. Knowing who your local representative is, yes, but how many British people actually know which laws are made in what way and by whom? How many know the order of authority of the various courts, until they actually have to use them? Does anyone actually know what laws there are around these days?

Maths -- it depends what they actually mean. Possibly they mean arithmetic (lots of people especially in the medias do mean that when they say 'maths'). But if they mean real mathematics, again how many people actually need calculus, let alone higher forms? Those who do need it learn it, but let's face it I haven't needed to use most of it in a job or daily life.

(I like Boris. If we're going to have to pay for politicians they may as well be entertaining in return...)

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

I don't think he said religion makes you stupid. I think he said some churches function as a tool to justify and enforce the opinions of those who shaped them.

Generally I am in favour of religion but rather less keen on churches. Religion is about your relationship with God and how that shapes you and your actions. The church is about someone else's opinion on God and how you should shape your behaviour.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, he said:

"...how did so many US citizens become so stupid, and so suspicious of intelligence? Susan Jacoby's book The Age of American Unreason provides the fullest explanation I have read so far. She shows that the degradation of US politics results from a series of interlocking tragedies.

One theme is both familiar and clear: religion - in particular fundamentalist religion - makes you stupid. The US is the only rich country in which Christian fundamentalism is vast and growing."

So, either he, or the author whose explanation he accepts, is saying here, in so many words, that religion makes you stupid. He singles out fundamentalist religion as being a particular example, but does not separate it in his statement from any other form of religion.

I didn't think I'd managed to misread it that drastically. If he didn't mean what he said, he should have said it differently, as you did, and as I did in my post. I think he meant it, but I could be wrong.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I don't think it is precisely true to say that religion makes people stupid, but it certainly can make people *behave stupidly*.

I mean, come on; people who throw rattlesnakes around their church to show that "the spirit is on them" who then say when they are bitten "I don't know why God allowed this to happen, but I know it's part of His plan."? Sure that's stupid. We all know exactly what happened; this person frightened a wild animal and gave it no way to escape, so it bit him; a mouse would have done as much and a six year old child would have seen it coming.

And this person did it specifically *because of his religion.* We're not talking about a snake lover who took religion as his excuse and cover to handle snakes; a snake lover would have done it properly, gripping the snake gently but firmly just behind the head to admire it before letting it escape into the bushes.

This is just one example, which I happened to see in a film in anthropology class many years ago, but we can all think of stupid behaviors prompted by religion. The Inquisition pops to mind. I can imagine a few sick people who want to torture, who take religion as their excuse and shield--but if religion didn't make the rest of that society behave stupidly, why would the normal people put up with it? People deny their children medical care, believing God will heal them if they just pray hard enough--can you imagine someone doing that without religion telling them they should?

Religion doesn't have to make people behave stupidly, but it seems to me that it certainly can, and that's something to worry about when religious people collect in large groups and accumulate temporal power.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I agree that following a particular religion can lead to stupid behaviour. So can football, musical theatre, mountains, gourmet food, science fiction, and the misuse of secular authority by anyone. The Inquisition, in its most popularly memorable and extreme form, was created as a tool of just such secular authority, and normal people put up with it because that authority told them they had to. That is generally the reason why people put up with bad things.

I can't speak for Christian Science, any more than I can for the Moonies or the followers of whoever Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is this year. People have denied themselves and their children medical care because they simply don't trust doctors, because they can't afford to pay for it, because they prefer the herbal remedies their grannies used to supply, and for a host of other reasons. The fact that particular religions encourage stupidity (and it would be idle to deny that some, often for their own very secular reasons, do) still does not justify the remark.

For one thing, religion has also led to scientific discovery. We can both name people, from William of Ockham through to Mendel, who might not have become known as scientists if they had not been taught to read and to think by the religious orders to which they belonged. So religion can also make people be smart, if it is allowed to do so.

I do not believe that religious people (by which I mean people who are actually religious) have any interest in accumulating temporal power. I believe that people who have a consuming interest in accumulating temporal power find religion a useful and convenient means to do so. If religion were not there, they would find another. There is no shortage.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see any reason for allowing that flip, nasty generalisation any room to lurk whatsoever. People can be stupid all on their own, and should take responsibility for it; saying that religion made them do it is letting them off far too easily. Not to mention the people in whose interest it is that they should be stupid.

[howeird]

He is saying fundamentalist religion makes you stupid. Which it does, IMHO. It teaches one to believe unquestioningly in authority.

[earth-wizard.livejournal.com]

Your opinion is just about as ill-founded as the writer in the article. Hell, I'm an atheist, but was raised in the Southern Baptist church in Texas. I still know many of these men and women, but would not see the indivdual members of the church as stupid nor as authoritarians. Many of them question the dogmas, just as I did, yet still find a reason to believe in their god. I have to respect that even if I do not.

So to decry a religionist as stupid is just as dogmatic and ill-informed as for a religionist to see me, as an Atheist, as stupid or ill-informed. Until human beings can come together and agree to disagree, yet protect to the hilt each others rights to our private beliefs we will not find democracy to ever be what the Enlightenment philosophes first fomented in the French and American Revolutions.

[howeird]

By most definitions, the people you describe are not fundamentalist. Fundamentalism does not allow for dogma to be questioned, or for scripture to be taken any way except literally. "God said it, I believe it, the end."

Please note that I did not say Southern Baptist in my comment.

[earth-wizard.livejournal.com]

True on both accounts. I was referring to Southern Baptist in the previous article. Sorry on that. And, yes, the theological tenets of the Southern Baptist creed are dogmatic, but the members do not all agree nor condone the theological crapology of their leaders as in most things... :) Yeah, for me, when I chose to abandon the early teachings of parents, and elders, and make the choice based upon my understanding of self, society, and scientific and philosophical ideas I was fairly dogmatic in my own atheism for a long while, then realized that any dogma, atheistic or religious was self-defeating and not worthy of the effort. :)

and, sorry, didn't mean to single you out personally, was just using your example of agreeing with the statement "fundamentalism religion makes you stupid"... of course now that you've detailed your definition I can agree that you're perfectly legit in your estimation :) I too would agree that all fundamentalist dogma is thouroughly tempered by a literalist and tyrannical ideology based on intolerance and bigotry. My opinion. :0

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Fundamentalist dogma is indeed all those things you said. I still do not believe that it makes the people who believe in it stupid.

I will go further (and the rest of this is addressed at the thread in general, not at you or howeird specifically). If you once get past the vocal ones who loudly parrot the dogma because it makes them feel important or secure or gets them on teevee or for whatever reason, I think you would find that the rank-and-file membership of many if not most fundamentalist groups, as of any other religion, includes a number of people who routinely question the dogmas, if only to themselves. They may not speak out about it, and again there are many possible perfectly logical reasons why they might not feel able to. They may speak out about it and simply not be heard or listened to. They may leave the group (at which point they presumably miraculously recover their intellects). But I believe they exist. And saying of any group of which this may be found true that "well, they're not fundamentalists" smacks of the old rhyme about science fiction:

"'SF's no good!' they bellow till we're deaf.
'But this looks good.' 'Well, then, it's not SF.'"

I have no proof for these suppositions...but I *will* not accept that it is okay to pigeonhole and dismiss an entire group of total strangers as stupid on the basis that one does not agree with their beliefs. Never have, never will. It's not only smug and arrogant, it's rotten tactics.

[earth-wizard.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree, I was not implying that I agreed with his use of the term "stupid", which is for me anathema, only that I agreed that fundamentalism is in itself unjustifiable no matter what faith. :) I think my other comments above, which you agreed with stipulate my own feelings... :)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Well, no. Sorry, but no. His words were "Religion--in particular fundamentalist religion--makes you stupid."

Not "only" fundamentalist religion, or "by which I mean" fundamentalist religion, or even "mainly" fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalist religion is a particular example, in his view, but he included all religion in his comment. It's a fairly unequivocal statement.

And military training teaches one to believe unquestioningly in authority. Does that make soldiers stupid?

[rdmaughan.livejournal.com]

On a reread, I think I read too much of my own opinion into what was there rather than reading what was really there. I could still be right but if I am it is very sloppily worded.

[earth-wizard.livejournal.com]

What's sad in this article is that the writer gives us a partial reading of Susan Jacoby's work, The Age of American Unreason, which I, too, recently read. She attacks not only the pundits on the Right, but those on the Left who have both engenered myths of anti-intellectualism. What is really sad is that most common people actually do read a hell of a lot more than either side gives us credit for.

Just look at the economics of bookstores. More books in all branches of knowledge are sold per-capita in our age than in all previous ages of the history of this planet. It's not that we are dumb and stupid, it's that most of us have to work our butts off in low paying jobs for 10-12 hours a day which leaves us very little time to debate the fine points of aesthetics, philosophy, fine art, politics, or any other subject that matters... But does that mean we're dumb? Of course not...

As I've traveled across American over that past eight years as a contractor working in many diverse regions I've found people not only to be intelligent, but also to be active in their local communities trying to do postive things to make a difference. Sure there are those who blow it from time to time, those who choose the easy path of escape into alchohol or drugs, but for each of those there are ten fold who choose to change things for the better. Many small underground magazines attest to the fact that there are diverse ethnic, social, and gender or religious based groups that actively participate in local politics in every town or city in this country.

So when I see pundits on either side decrying the sad state of dumbness in the American people I want to puke, to just slobber all over these pundits and show them a bit of their own medicine.

Jacoby's main argument is that the new Infotainment economics is driving an anti-intellectual wedge into the American social environment that is causing people to drift into lazy styles of play and thinking. Like she says: "I too am nibbling at the edges by talking about the need for political leaders who address Americans as thinking adults; for intellectuals with the will to step up and bring their knowledge, instead of a lust for power, to the public square(p. 315)." For her it is the Infotainment industry that is the passifier of the Amercian Mind, as well as people settling for easier satisfactions in play and mental effort, rather than the hard won battles of intellect and culture that once made our country great, that is brining about this drift into anti-intellectualism at the moment.

Her solution: "If there is to be an alternative to the culture of distraction, it can only be created one family at a time, by parents and citizens determined to preserve a saving remnant of those who prize memory and true learning above all else(p. 316)." Let's hope that might happen...