An Essay about Atheism in Latin

[Belacqua]

Religion is based on the idea that certain things must not be questioned. 

This may need to be demonstrated, I think. "Based on" is a big claim. 

Granted, ideas of accepting things by faith is a part of some religions. Perhaps by "religion" you mean a certain kind of anti-intellectual Christianity? In that case you should be more specific. 

Are you aware that Christianity has always had within it critical and questioning movements? Historically, it is a constant truth of Christianity that dissenters tell the mainstream they are wrong. Nearly every part of Christianity has been questioned and criticized in history. In fact it's usually the names of these questioners we remember, far more than the mainstream. And yes, the mainstream sometimes takes extreme measures in fighting back. Those measures were bad. The fact that such extreme measures were deemed necessary shows the danger of the questioners to the mainstream.

Religion usually doesn't test anything. And when it does test something, it tests incoherent hypotheses (ghosts, psychic powers...). 

Can you cite a case in which "religion" tested the reality of ghosts? Does this mean the Vatican did it? Or some ghost hunter on TV? 

There are things which can be tested by scientific means and things that can't. For example, you could test anything quantifiable and repeatable, probably. 

Can you test whether it is good to commit yourself to the good of others, as many religions say you should? Can you test propositions which are inherently metaphysical, like the relation of the Logos to the material world? These are more fundamental to "religion" than ghosts. 

In some sense, it's not just anti-science, it's also anti-intellectual.

Of course, anti-intellectualism is not just limited to theocracy. China is, despite being secular (if communism is not a religion, and it seems to me that, to a large extent, it is), quite anti-intellectual. I mean, banning Wikipedia just because it contains some inappropriate content. Future intellectuals need to learn how to deal with small amount of inappropriate content.

One of the most anti-intellectual trends I've seen recently is the assumption that only science can tell us anything about the human condition. More intellectual pursuits like history, literature, and other subjects which require various intellectual skills, are sometimes devalued on this forum in favor of a faith and devotion to science. 

The classic book on anti-intellectualism is Hofstadter's. 

https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectual...filtered=1

He specifies two qualities that an intellectual must have: that she take ideas seriously, and that she take ideas playfully. 

That is, that an intellectual works on ideas as good in themselves, not only as they increase his bank account or some technological advance. Also an intellectual is willing to spend time with and work on ideas that are not self-evidently true, that despite being old-fashioned or out of the mainstream, nevertheless yield some wisdom. 

If you agree with his definition at all, many anti-religion people are wildly anti-intellectual as well. They declare without proof that only efforts at improving survival are worthwhile (I was told this straight out on this forum last week). Or they declare that a love of ancient philosophy is mental masturbation. Masturbation being the Puritan's favorite symbol of pleasure that doesn't procreate, and many atheist puritan-style anti-intellectuals echoing this judgment.