If there were any objective measurement of 'intelligence' (or even a consistent definition of it) I might agree with you *g*.
The example you gave was indeed a circular definition, you were correct as an 11-year-old. You preceded it however by mentioning self-contradiction. An awful lot of religious dogma does indeed contain examples of both of these, and both may indeed be termed 'nonsense' (I'm pretty sure I've come across one piece of dogma which managed to be both circular and self-contradictory at the same time; it may have been in the same Creed, but was certainly impressive in its nonsensicality).
But as someone pointed out in the comments to the original article, there is no need for theology to be 'nonsense' logically. Everything is based on assumptions and postulates (as was pointed out there, including Euclid's mathematics), and it is quite possible to have a rational (although still just as unprovable) theology, just as it is to have non-rational science (plenty of scientists have made deductions with holes and contradictions and circularities). The important thing, it seems to me, is to be able to handle new information and ways of looking at things when (not if) they appear. Like, for instance, scientists are doing with the LHC, many are now seriously considering that if they don't find that particle they may have to change whole theories of physics (and I commend them for thinking about that).
no subject
The example you gave was indeed a circular definition, you were correct as an 11-year-old. You preceded it however by mentioning self-contradiction. An awful lot of religious dogma does indeed contain examples of both of these, and both may indeed be termed 'nonsense' (I'm pretty sure I've come across one piece of dogma which managed to be both circular and self-contradictory at the same time; it may have been in the same Creed, but was certainly impressive in its nonsensicality).
But as someone pointed out in the comments to the original article, there is no need for theology to be 'nonsense' logically. Everything is based on assumptions and postulates (as was pointed out there, including Euclid's mathematics), and it is quite possible to have a rational (although still just as unprovable) theology, just as it is to have non-rational science (plenty of scientists have made deductions with holes and contradictions and circularities). The important thing, it seems to me, is to be able to handle new information and ways of looking at things when (not if) they appear. Like, for instance, scientists are doing with the LHC, many are now seriously considering that if they don't find that particle they may have to change whole theories of physics (and I commend them for thinking about that).