Search SHIELDS

Is Religion Irrational and Anti-Intellectual?

A significant principle of what could be called “secular orthodoxy”—the core beliefs of modern secularists—is the conviction that religion is inherently irrational and anti-intellectual.  Although usually simply asserted rather than argued, this proposition is fundamental to much of the critique by secularists of the role of religion in modern society.  Essentially, their argument insists that the world would be a much better place without religion.  This is not a sectarian debate about whether a particular denomination, belief, or practice is inspired or even beneficial or harmful.  Rather, it is a critique of religiousness in general, and, in its extreme form, is universalistic in its condemnation of all forms of religion throughout history.  

A common technique of the secular critics of religion is the use of the fallacy of the false generalization—finding one example of aberrant behavior by a believer in a particular denomination, and claiming that this aberration is not only normative for all followers of that particular denomination but for all believers in all religious denominations throughout history.  (Jon Krakauer’s recent Under the Banner of Heaven is a monumental exercise in precisely this fallacy.)  Of course, these same people always cry foul whenever someone—using precisely the same fallacious methodology—attempts to blame the crimes of Josef Stalin on all atheists because Stalin was an atheist.

A recent example of the secularist attack on religiousness can be found in the Op-ed section of the New York Times (“Believe it, or not,” August 15, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/; note, one must be registered with the NYT to access this web page).  In his article, Nicholas Kristof seems to assume a dichotomy between reason and religion:

• “American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time.” 
• There is a “poisonous divide … between intellectual and religious America.”
• The “scholarly and religious worlds [are] increasingly antagonistic.”
• He sees a “drift [among believers] away from a rich intellectual tradition  … toward the mystical.”

For Kristof, religious belief is inherently unscholarly and anti-intellectual.  A true intellectual and scholar simply cannot believe in this religion nonsense.  But such a claim is demonstrably untrue.  To take an illustration from just one field:  St. Thomas Aquinas, the titan of medieval scholastic philosophy, was one of the most rational humans who have ever lived.  “Safely medieval,” someone like Kristof might respond.  But the Society of Christian Philosophers, flourishing to a degree that few would have thought possible only two or three decades ago, counts among its members some of the most eminent philosophical minds now working—including noted thinkers in the powerhouse philosophy department at Notre Dame, where their existence might not seem so surprising, but also in such places as Yale and Oxford.

A related rhetorical ploy used by Kristof is his claim that “most biblical scholars” reject the historicity of the virgin birth.  This claim is even remotely plausible only if one systematically excludes from the data pool all conservative Protestants and Catholics with doctorates in religious studies.  What Kristof really means, of course is that “most secular biblical scholars” reject the virgin birth—which is hardly a great discovery, since their secular presuppositions allow them no alternative.  You see, believers in the virgin birth, even if they have Ph.D.s and teach in the field at universities, are not really “scholars.” 

All this posturing is rather ironic when we remember the original meaning and history of the word intellectual and its cognates intellect and intelligence (Latin: intellectus, intellegere, intelligentia).  In the classical sense of the term, intellect means essentially “understanding,” but in its technical philosophical and theological usage, the term refers to the capacity of the soul and mind to perceive and understand spiritual realities.  In a widespread version of Western epistemology—the doctrine of how we “know”—humans are endowed with senses, which allow us to understand the material world; with imagination, which allows us to understand, remember, and manipulate images derived from the senses; and intellect, which allows us to understand spiritual realities.  The intellect is the highest and most powerful of our mental and spiritual faculties.  Since the Enlightenment, however, there has been a steady transformation of the meaning of the term in English from the capacity to perceive and understand spiritual realities to the capacity to understand the material world.  Indeed, for Kristof, and many like him, intellectual now means precisely the opposite of what it originally meant: a Kristofian “intellectual” is someone who necessarily rejects the very existence of spiritual reality.  It is all merely irrational “mysticism” (another term that Kristof grotesquely misunderstands and misuses).   Now admittedly, Kristof is using the term intellectual in its normative early twenty-first century English sense.  But the transformation of the meaning of the word is an integral part of the centuries-long battle between agnosticism and religion, which now allows Kristof to proclaim victory precisely because, due to its redefinition, there can be no such thing as a religious intellectual.  Kristof is engaged in lexical imperialism—defining the meaning of a word in such a way as to gain an illegitimate ideological advantage. 

Whereas Descartes’ famous dictum Cogito, ergo sum—“I think, therefore I am”—was foundational to the Enlightenment, its spiritual alternative would be Intellego, ergo sum—“I understand [spiritual realities], therefore I am”—or, as St. Anselm put it, “I believe, that I might understand” (credo ut intelligam).  St. Augustine agreed: “Faith seeks,” he said, “understanding finds” (fides quaerit, intellectus invenit).  Faith is not the opposite of intellect; rather faith is the foundation for the true intellectual.  In other words, according to the original sense of the word, the only true intellectuals—indeed, the only people who can use the intellect—are believers who use the full capacity of their souls and minds to seek an understanding of the things of God.  (It is likely, by the way, that Abraham 3.19-22 and Doctrine and Covenants 93:29-36 and 130:18-19 use intelligence—the capacity to be intellectual—in this original sense of the word, often obscured in priesthood quorum discussions of these verses, which assume the post-Enlightenment meaning.)

In reality, at the foundation of the critics’ assertions that religion is irrational and anti-intellectual is the fact that religious believers have a different set of founding assumptions than do secularists.  Secularist agnostics and atheists are necessarily materialists and naturalists.  Believers claim the existence of a spiritual reality.  Both claims are equally unprovable, and remain presuppositions.  But it is no more a matter of faith to presuppose the existence of God than it is to presuppose that God does not exist.  Neither proposition can be demonstrated to others beyond possible doubt; both are therefore matters of faith.

Secularists nonetheless attempt to define the rules of the debate with believers by claiming that only people who reject spiritual things can be rational and intellectual.  Historically, of course, their position is simply absurd.  If believing in God makes one irrational and anti-intellectual, one must, with a wave of the hand, dismiss most of the great thinkers of world history—Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Erasmus, Luther, Pascal, Kierkegaard.  And these are only a few names from the western tradition, to which could be added hundreds of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists and Confucianists.  The history of science also teaches us that, while relying on the material evidence of the senses alone, one can be perfectly reasonable and yet quite definitively mistaken.  Given the presuppositions and evidence of the fourteenth century it was eminently reasonable to believe in geocentricity; it was also completely wrong.  Likewise, belief in galaxies or viruses would have been sheer folly before the nineteenth century. 

We want to emphasize that we believe reason to be a powerful and important mental tool in human life and thought.  We encourage everyone—especially those who disagree with us!—to be as reasonable and rational as possible.  But, like all other tools, it has its limitations.  If one is seeking to insert a screw into a wall, a hammer, despite its obvious power, is a poor choice—as one of us has found to his dismay on several occasions.  The most obvious proof of reason’s limitations is the simple fact that, despite centuries of study and discussion, secular agnostics, all of whom claim equally to be followers of pure reason, have been unable to come to any consensus about any major philosophical issue (other than, perhaps, the idea that God does not exist, which, of course, they actually cannot prove).  Indeed, many “intellectuals” today argue, in a rather astonishing abandonment of the essence of reason and intellect, that pure reason must lead us ultimately to relativism, the belief that there is no truth or reality, only perception and political power. 

Now we certainly agree that there is an enormous amount of unmitigated silliness masquerading as religious belief.  There always has been, and, we presume, always will be.  On the other hand, the same can be said concerning ideas about politics, economics, modern art, archaeology, health-care, space aliens, fashion, wine tasting, and, yes, even agnosticism and atheism.  But “intellectuals” like Kristof indulge in straw-man tactics when they deride religious faith as irrational and anti-intellectual.  Secularist critics of religion have a responsibility to engage the strongest rational arguments and thinkers religion has produced—not the weakest—if they want their views to be taken as anything other than sloganeering and cheerleading for like-minded atheists.

Dear “Suzzies”:

Your thoughtful and meticulously researched letter was passed on to me by the editors at Meridian.

Talk about hilarious posturing!

With best wishes,

Dan Peterson

Your thoughtful and meticulously researched letter was passed on to me by the editors at Meridian.

In a message dated 9/8/2003 4:07:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, daniel_peterson@byu.edu writes:

Your thoughtful and meticulously researched letter was passed on to me by the editors at Meridian.

"Thoughtful and meticulously researched letter" (my email)???  Surely you jest!

You guys are a barrel of laughs!  You do have a sense of humor after all!

 
Former Mormon

Why didn’t you just go ahead and sign it “SuzieQ#1”?  

We monitor everything, but most especially the profound reasoning and the erudite scholarship of the Recovery board—which terrifies us Morgbots, of course, but which also provides us with virtually our only opportunity to witness truly independent thought . . .  

Spirit Light & Love Ever Shining

In a message dated 9/8/2003 9:06:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, daniel_peterson@byu.edu writes:

Why didn’t you just go ahead and sign it “SuzieQ#1”?

I thought you read the board and would know who it was. And you do and you did!  

I’ve hardly kept it a secret that I look in on RfM from time to time.  I’ve told Eric that I do.  I enjoy RfM immensely.

Did you really imagine that you could hide your identity from me and my fellow mercenary hack minions at Morg Central Command?   
 
Do you monitor my home and phone too, or just read the board. Do you try to put names together and find out their read identity also?

Actually, I don’t much care who you are.  I’ve been amused, though, by numerous posts from people on RfM who seem to get a delicious thrill from imagining that employees at FARMS or at Church headquarters are assigned to monitor RfM, and who assume that RfM looms as large in other people’s minds, or in the eyes of Church leadership, as it does in their own.

We monitor everything, but most especially the profound reasoning and the erudite scholarship of the Recovery board—which terrifies us Morgbots, of course, but which also provides us with virtually our only opportunity to witness truly independent thought . . .  

Why would you be looking for 'erudite scholarship" on the Recovery Board?
 I would think that you would know that that is not a place to find "virtually our only opportunity to witness truly independent thought."

I take it you missed the irony?  I should have thought it was too thick to miss.

I was having a bit of fun with the idea—expressed in quite a number of RfM posts that I’ve read—that RfM is a place where deep and independent thinking is going on—as opposed to the “Morg,” where brain-dead “Morgbots” aren’t allowed to read or think—and where powerful arguments are regularly marshaled that destroy “Mopologist” reasoning.  (Candidly, I’ve never seen such an argument at RfM, though I’ve seen a good deal of boasting about how common they are.  Perhaps I’ve just been unlucky in my sampling.)  For a weak restatement of essentially that very idea, see the two paragraphs immediately below:

Your tone is a predictable example of the thinking of the Mormons who are spoon feeding the members with  "erudite scholarship" so their testimony pops right out of their chest.   

I read you web page. That is the kind of "erudite scholarship" that has convinced me that the Mormon Church counts on the members not doing their own research and rely on people like you who use them. Are their testimonies that weak?

I’m not sure what web page you’re referring to.  The FARMS web page, perhaps?  FARMS has produced some very good materials, in my opinion.

Yes, I am sure you are afraid. Very afraid. Otherwise, you would not write articles designed to reinforce the fear of leaving the church.

I’ve never written such an article in my life, and am not inclined to do so.

The church must keep the members afraid they will turn into the distorted view you paint. They must be told that those who leave are not scholarly or capable of independent thought!

I’ve never written such an article in my life, and am not inclined to do so.

You must be making the brethren proud.

Well, I would hope that the various translation series I edit and the symposium at the Library of Congress and things like that don’t exactly embarrass them.

You are doing just what the ExMormons expect. You are predictable.  And it is one of the major reasons that people leave Mormonism.
 
And what is it, exactly, that I’m doing?  Writing articles and books to terrify members?

I’ve never done any such thing.  Where do you come up with this stuff?

What you are doing is showing the world that you must paint ExMormons as  some kind of evil idiots, to bolster the  testimonies of members because, apparently, the church  must not allow independent study and thought and research outside Mormonism.

And where have I done this?

They must  keep the members believing by faith  in  that wild and crazy, outrageous story  and Book of Mormon fiction and plagiarized work that Joseph Smith, Jr. and his cronies told!  
 
I take it that we view things rather differently on this score.

It is a corporation. Your work feeds the testimonies that keeps the tithing coming in and keeps your job.
 
While lamenting my mythical attacks on you and your fellow ex-Mormons, you accuse me—and I’m guessing that you do it without any sense of incongruity—of dishonorable and mercenary motives.  Funny.

Your work is some of the best advertisement for people not join the Mormon Church.   That and the letters your fellow members write by the hundreds  to the ExMormons.
 
Just out of curiosity, could you please identify for me which of my publications, in particular, might be most effective in convincing people that Mormonism is false?

I’ve enjoyed your notes.  Would you mind terribly if I were to share them with some friends?

Best wishes,

Dan Peterson

 [SHIELDS note: hard returns removed]
 
 
Spirit Light & Love Ever Shining

1. We believe the reference to SusieQ#1 has to do with identification on the Recovery from Mormonism message board.

2. Hard returns removed]

Spirit Light & Love Ever Shining

Yes, I  guess I missed your "irony."  The tone was sarcastic, arrogant  and condescending and missed irony by a long mile on an initial read.  Perhaps you could have phrased it differently.

Mormon males are often characterized as arrogant -- even some Mormon Elders at my door a while ago had that arrogant attitude that is so distasteful.

My Mormon (TBM), High Priest, BYU graduate, now retired--husband read your comments (I was shocked and shared them with him)  and characterized them as "slamming," and "arrogant" and was not impressed. He felt it was highly inappropriate for someone in your position to take that tone. Guess he missed the "irony" too.

The "bit of fun" you talked about eluded me as I had read nothing to reference what you were talking about.  Perhaps they would have made sense as irony if I had used some of the same words. You pulled stuff out of a hat that had nothing to do with what I was saying. It felt like I had walked in to the room in the middle of a paragraph. I had no idea where you were coming from.
 
One comment, in the Meridian Article,  in particular was quite humorous, both to me and other ExMormons who saw it as applicable to Mormonism.

"Now we certainly agree that there is an enormous amount of unmitigated silliness masquerading as religious belief.  There always has been, and, we presume, always will be!"

I often refer to Mormonism as just one tiny church; rather silly and not as horrific as others.

"Secularist critics of religion have a responsibility to engage the strongest rational arguments and thinkers religion has produced—not the weakest—if they want their views to be taken as anything other than sloganeering and cheerleading for like-minded atheists. "

Sloganeering and cheerleading for like-minded atheist? That comment really tickled my funny bone!  This is the kind of comment that destroys your credibility on the subject.

To set the record clear: I never indicated that anything you write would convince anyone that Mormonism is false. That was not my statement.   

To set the record clear, again: this is not personal. I made no comments regarding any mythologic attacks on me or other ExMormons.

FARMS  produces some of the funniest articles about  imaginary characters and animals, etc.in a weak attempt to placate Mormons who have to think their Book of Mormon is literal and factual. OK. They meet their target audience.  They worked for me, too, once upon a time.  I have no idea why they think it is so important to do those articles.  They only appeal to Mormons, from what I can tell.

Thousand apologies if I misread  any your comments.

I read several items and could have mixed you up with something I thought was a collaboration with Mr. Hamblin.  If so, forgive my error.  I don't have anything on this computer to double check my references. I have not read any of your translation series that you edit.

I have no idea why Mormons read the bulletin board, but they seem to get a "delicious thrill" whether it is an assignment,  a hobby or an obsession or just a fleeting fancy.  Many of them become ExMormon posters.

I do not know the reasons for your loyalty to the Mormon God-myth. Whatever it is, you know which side of the bread it is buttered on and your employer is the Mormon Church.

You have enjoyed my notes and want to share them? Hmmm. It is the reason  they are "enjoyed" that bothers me. I am not confident of your motives.
Thank you for asking, but it would not be highly appropriate to share them. They are not part of the RfM board and I do not know your friends, nor do I know you personally.

Spirit Light & Love Ever Shining

I dunno.  Maybe I AM vicious and arrogant.  But I thought SusieQ's reaction
to me was over the top, and her description of me the other day put me
virtually on the same level as Attila the Hun, which seems to me perhaps a
tad overstated.

-dcp