Anti-intellectualism Is Killing America

[Pyrrho]

Religion is both a cause of ignorance and is caused by ignorance.  It is not the sole cause of ignorance.  (And it is not the only result of ignorance either.)  Religion flourishes among ignorant people, whereas well-educated people tend to be less religious.  This is seen both in terms of societies as a whole, and among individuals within societies.

If you mean to be asking about the origins of ignorance and religion, I think that ignorance obviously predates religion, and religion was a primitive way of trying to understand the world.

It still is ("a primitive way of trying to understand the world").

Yes.

I think it depends on the case - In western/westernised societies there is a correlation between irreligiosity and education/intelligence, but let's look at Japan - IQ and education rank high compared to the rest of the world, yet 80% of the population is Shinto (I know some atheists believe Japanese are atheists but that's simply not truth) - However, I'd point out non-Abrahamic religions work differently and are much less harmful than Abrahamic ones. If we look at history and atrocities in the name of religion the Abrahamic faiths always shine compared to the rest of the world's religions - I think there was even a study done that concluded most acts of violence are caused by too many variables to point out a specific isolated one but when it comes to Abrahamic religions there is a much higher correlation. Usually when I talk about religion being bad I am mostly talking about Christianity, Islam and Judaism - I don't (and can't) know about all religions in the world but I know it's a diverse sociological behaviour (or groups of behaviours) and I can't say anything concrete about religion in abstract b sides "They're wrong".

Although it may well be true that Abrahamic religions are more violent than others, others are quite violent.  Here are a few links on this (and there are a couple of links at the first link):

http://atheistforums.org/thread-32071-po...#pid899278

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_a...s_in_India

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia...story.html

Also, since the Abrahamic religions are dominant in more of the world than all other religions combined, one would naturally expect that most of the world's religious violence would be done by Abrahamic religions, even if all religions were exactly equal in their violent tendencies.

I am not particularly interested in pursuing the question of how violent and nasty other religions are, but they are often violent and nasty.  And they are all primitive and superstitious and discourage critical thinking, so they are all bad.

I somehow doubt that actual reading ability is necessary to be a preacher in the U.S.  Very likely, the exact details of what one must do vary from state to state, but it is probably little more than filling out a form (which someone could do for you if you were illiterate).  Assuming, of course, that one wants to be able to perform legal weddings, etc.  Otherwise, you probably don't need to even fill out a form.

Of course, if you wanted to be associated with a specific religious denomination, then you would also have to meet their requirements, whatever they might be.

From my experience with Catholicism priests go to seminaries and need to study for several years before running their own church and preaching. It's not as simple as people believe and learning three/four languages, studying history extensively and understanding philosophy are challenging activities. It seems the US works differently and until I joined this forum I didn't know how it worked - I always looked to the US as a country with a steel curtain separating state and church - Now I'm surprised to know my country, one of the most Catholic ones in Europe, is reasonably secular and I can live as an atheist without problems.

We have a theoretical division between church and state that is quite rigid.  If we actually followed our constitution on this, we would be better off than we are.  When laws are not followed, it hardly matters how good the laws are.  One can see from our money that we do not follow this, as we have "In God We Trust" on our money, which is an obscene violation of the principle of the separation of church and state.  And that is not the most egregious violation, but it is a clear and obvious and easy to understand example of violating that principle.

Religion here tends to be opposed to education, though Catholics like having indoctrination centers ("schools") that they use to both get money and to make sure they get their claws very deep into children.  Catholics have private schools to which one can send one's children for a fee instead of to the free public schools for K-12 (please note that U.S. ideas of "private schools" and "public schools" are quite different from the way those expressions are used in England).

So, here Catholics will tell you that they value an education, but what they mean by that is something different from just what one would get in a secular school.  The usual subjects, though, they probably do well enough.  But religion is a required part of their curriculum.

My girlfriend worked as an intern in a Catholic school and I think there was a morning prayer session but parents had the right to refuse/not authorize their children to partake in it - There were some crucifixes in classrooms, but aside from that no one mentioned god. The school was quite good, students were very hardworking and most were from rich/middle class families (monthly prices are high) - It's a school I'd happily send my kids to.

There are also other religious schools for K-12, or some part thereof.

What is K-12?

Sorry.  "K-12" is Kindergarten through twelfth grade, roughly education from 6 years old to 18 years old.  It is education prior to college/university.  See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K–12

By law, one must provide an education for one's children, which means either sending them to public school, private school, or homeschooling them (which is teaching them yourself at home, an idea that I think is not generally good).  Most people who homeschool their children seem to be religious fanatics, who want to keep their children from the contamination of the world, but there are exceptions to that generalization.

Correct me if I'm wrong but public school is free, right?

Yes, K-12 public school is free.  College/university is not free.

I think most European countries allow homeschooling but only in serious cases like when your children has a contagious disease or a serious problem that doesn't allow them to go to school - even in those cases the usual solution is to pay a teacher to go to your residence and give lessons to your child. Religious freedom in Europe works differently - In America, it seems no one would be forbidden to wear a religious symbol or express religious belief in public, because it's your identity - In Europe, particularly in France, you would never be allowed to do that - It's called laicité. Religious exemptions and conscious objections exist, but not to the same degree it happens in the US. I could get away with not performing an abortion or euthanasia under religious freedom clauses, but never with discriminating against a homosexual in a job interview, or refusing to sell a product to someone because I think it is sinful - I'm not sure about billboard signs, I've never seen one regarding any religion, only small 

I think the French are better on this than we are, in practice, regardless of what our actual Constitution says.  But yes, you seem to understand the situation perfectly.

The idea of American exceptionalism is very much a part of conservatism is the U.S., which is tied in with religion.  See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

And with that idea comes a sense of entitlement.  So I don't think this is completely separate from the influence of religion in the U.S.

To put this another way, the people who tend to promote the idea of American exceptionalism and therefore have a sense of entitlement tend to be religious.  (Of course, people who are very rich also tend to have a feeling of entitlement, which is not primarily a matter of religion.)

Irreligious people (like me) tend to view these things with disdain.  The idea that the U.S. is better than everywhere else in every way is, frankly, moronic.

Any kind of nationalistic exceptionalism is bad - No nation is perfect - I see moderate patriotism as a healthy behaviour and even natural because all of us are unique and proud of the group we are born into - But people should be ready to admit that where they live not everything is perfect.

I am not sure that patriotism is good at all, unless there is something real to be proud of.  But otherwise, I agree with what you say.

Your parents might be interested to know that I do not blame them for that feeling.  Just to be clear, I am an American, and have been my whole life.

There are many things that the U.S. has done that are grossly immoral.  Both in foreign policy, and in domestic policy, though I expect that the former, as you say, is most relevant to how your parents feel.

Unfortunately, my influence on U.S. laws and practices is nearly nothing at all.

I particularly hate the double standard with American foreign policy - Blame Israel, blame Russia, blame Iran, the Saudis, pretty much everyone - But not America. Not saying the rest is justified, but America should have the same scrutiny as Russia. Is the invasion of Crimea wrong and immoral? Probably - But so are American invasions.

I agree.

Because of the European crisis, my parents became pro-Russia and they believe the southern countries of Europe (more affected by the crisis) should seek Russian help - Prime minister of Greece is travelling a lot to Moscow, let's see what happens in a few days/weeks (I'm curious).

I think Europe would be better off if they were all united.  The basic idea of the EU is good, though I am not necessarily endorsing the exact way the EU is set up.  But all of you would be better off if you worked together.  I don't think Russia is your friend, and you had better all figure out how to work together or you will all be in trouble.  A united Europe would be formidable, but a divided one can be dealt with one country at a time (not to mention pitting different countries in Europe against each other, to further weaken individual countries).

That idea applies whether the pressure on you comes from west of you or east of you.  In unity there is strength, but in division there is weakness.

When I'm surfing the web and posting on international forums I have trouble debating some topics because many threads are american-centred and discussed according to the american way of freedom and individualism - Sometimes it confuses, but I confess I'm more americanised than many Europeans - I certainly agree that when it comes to free speech America has it right, at least more right than in Europe.

Yes, I agree, I think we got that pretty well right.  Of course, I cannot take any credit for that, as that was set up long before I was born, so I had nothing to do with it.  (Likewise, I may escape blame for the bad things that I did not do.)

When I explain Americans that it's normal in Europe to not be able to legally own guns unless you are a cop or security officer, they act like it is some kind of abomination.

Yes.  I think that many Americans have a crazy interpretation of our Second Amendment, where people imagine that the first half of it is meaningless.  See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame...nstitution

---

In the U.S., religious colleges and universities are typically not as good as secular ones.  However, probably the Catholic schools are better than most religious schools.  But you would probably have to take some religious crap classes here in a Catholic school.

If you were attending school in the U.S., I would recommend avoiding religious schools.  You can look online for lists of the most respected schools in the U.S., and see that my opinion is not dramatically different from those who typically make such rankings.

I don't plan to go to the US for anything else than tourism - Unless someone offers me a big amount of money - Still, after reading so many articles I think I would never go out of fear of being discriminated.

But I suspect that the greater point you wish to make is that it is possible to be well-educated and be religious.  Of course, that is true, at least in the conventional sense.  Not all education is equal in terms of getting people to think critically, and also people often compartmentalize their ideas so that within a particular subject, someone might be very capable, without being very reasonable in other areas of their thinking.

In the case of Catholicism, they do not want you thinking certain kinds of thoughts, as such thoughts tend to lead to atheism.  So although they may provide a fine education in some subjects, there are certain subjects that I would be very disinclined to trust them (such as Philosophy, for example).  If they taught philosophy properly, they would be pointing out the fact that all of the arguments for the existence of god are generally regarded as fallacious.  I somehow doubt that they are going to be presenting such ideas in a fair, unbiassed way in most Catholic schools.

Well I can't speak for all Catholic schools - First of all, I'm mostly talking about primary schools (for kids ranging from 6-14 years old) so there's no philosophy class the government mandates, and philosophy in highschool is not very deep - My second teacher of philosophy in highschool was a Christian, the first never revealed her faith (or lack of thereof), I think both were brilliant teachers and opened my mind to many subjects. Honestly, I think some arguments against the existence of god are also fallacious, and I've pointed that out many times, but generally I agree that the case to not believe is stronger than to believe. My girlfriend's experience with philosophy classes in a Catholic university was good - Some people believed, others were atheists, others were deists - The sister (I mean nun) was Catholic but she said in the beginning that people should be free to question faith.

In other words, for all their pretense at valuing an education, I think the Catholics are not interested in teaching people to think critically and carefully about everything, for if they did, they would be basically teaching their students to reject Catholicism, and I am going to go out on a limb and say that that is not the purpose of Catholic schools.

I think any group with a bare minimum of ideological goals will educate its members in a  way that avoids controversial topics. I have read some communist literature, and I know it's not nice to talk about the possibility of a one party system being the direct result of the socialist proposal - It is one of the many ways to achieve the socialist dream, and while Marx didn't advocate direct violence, he never said it was wrong to execute a few burgueoise - It's important to talk about the inconvenient, and not just the convenient. Catholic universities, from my experience, have a few religious scholars in them but mostly focus on providing quality education - Some masters' degrees have been ranked among the 500 best in the world, in fields like economics and law - Of course most professors are not there to teach Catholicism and may not even be Catholics, they're just good professors/experts who are paid a lot to teach there. It's what happens when you have money. In some way, I think Catholicism has become more compatible with science and education with the whole "understanding god's work" thing and that's why I see some pretty good Catholic schools. For the record, I'm a university student but I'm currently taking my degree in a public one - it's 100% free.

I have no specific thing to say in response to this, but I am interested, so thank you for stating it.  On second thought, I have something snarky to say, and that is that Catholics should be good at tortured legalistic arguments, given the contorted theological arguments they have put out over the years.

If you need it, look at definitions 9 and particularly 10 of "torture" at:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture?s=t

The lawyer who wins the case is not always the one whose position is most fundamentally reasonable.

---