Are scientists smarter than the religious?

Question

I ask this because science at least allows for the fact that it could be wrong, and encourages people to test its theories constantly.

Whereas in religion, "my way is right" is the thinking of almost any follower. There is no leeway in religion to allow for anything other than what has been indoctrined for centuries.

If religions were more open-minded about the fact that they could be wrong, would people like the religious followers more?

Answer 1

Science asks questions which may never be answered

Religion has answers that may never be questioned.

Answer 2

Buddy science isn't an extention of religion. Its a phonemana of it. See religion has always been our way of figuring things out. It works on the assumption its better to have things figured out as oppose to letting people figure it out for themselves. Its works great! Because we are design for HOPE! We love it, its sort of the mental carrot in front of the horse. Ether way this didn't work well when you add dynamic elements into the equation like I don't know... TECHNOLOGY!!!! Yep that breeder of sin! Ether way technology is more of a fancy term for appling knowledge and using it on a daily bases, sort of like keeping your grain house clean so rodents don't breed and kill you with the fleas they carry which also carry virus that help to spread disease. Of course people use to believe you pray to fix such a problem but that wouldn't even be considered now, which always makes me laff. Really shows you how were changing. And the religion is sort of our own tendecies beliefs and actuall facts. Becasue people held on time them that way. Ether way there can't be two in the same world and world right, its already causing unbelieveable problems in our society because of it. So until people realize how much new responsiblity has been laid on them to become more intellegent, more spirtualty, and more purposeful. It doesn't mater what we hope for were in for some big conflicts. The old and the new....

Answer 3

First of all yes scientists are smarter than the religious....because they prove that the rainbow isnt a sighn from god that there wont be another flood...and so much more.

Secondly if the religious people were more open then yes people would like the followers more...but we would still have issues between religions

Answer 4

The question is stable, nonetheless it is not worded properly. Scientists are no longer unavoidably smarter or greater clever than non secular human beings, yet we (i'm a scientist) are plenty greater open-minded, logical thinkers. everybody who heavily believes in faith and could no longer settle for the possibility that there is not any god is very frankly, a closed-minded bigot. You who say that scientists won't be able to settle for the possibility that theories like evolution won't be splendid are idiots. We settle for the possibility, yet all of us be attentive to it incredibly is relatively unlikely that the theory is incorrect. grant a valid argument with experimental data and methods to help yet another hypothesis and any stable scientist could fairly desire to debate the possibilities.

Answer 5

Not all religions require blind faith. And not all scientists are immune to demonstrating blind faith- even in matters that are considered to be scientific. It is not a question of intellect.

Most people, including scientists, fall victim to believing what they want to believe- and interpreting the world around them in ways that seem to confirm what they want to believe. It is called confirmation bias and scientists have it too.

It requires a commitment to accepting only what the evidence supports- even when we do not like what it supports to get beyond our self imposed limitations in this regard.

The bible encourages people to "keep testing" and to use their power of reason to discern what is and what is not.
Not all religious people who profess to hold the bible as their guide bother to do that. Most religious people who profess the bible to be their guide have never read it and blindly trust what they are told by their religious leader.

Further, when one religious group says "the universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour periods" the assumption is made that all religious groups buy that idea- when in fact, that is not the case. (And the bible does not teach that that is the case)

I personally used to be agnostic. I am now one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I also have a 135 IQ (if you buy into the whole IQ thing- (which I personally do not- but for the purpose of answering your question...) they say that means I am more logical and have better reasoning skills than 95+% of the population)

Many of Jehovah's Witnesses are scientists (nuclear physicists, geologists, astrophysicists- several Witnesses work at NASA) and we all believe firmly in science. 'Science' being 'that which is proven'- not 'that which the majority of scientists believe even though there is no evidence for it.'

For example: All aspects of evolutionary theory are presented as though they are scientifically proven facts. The truth is, some of it has been proven and much of it has not. But the scientific community does not point out what has not been proven, because they themselves believe it to be fact and so represent it as such.

Microevolution is a proven scientific fact. We can see it all around us in different dog breeds, different coloured humans and in little changes we see within a species over time. As a religious person, I accept this scientifically proven aspect of evolution.

Macroevolution (one species changing into a completely different species over time) is accepted as a scientific fact, when the truth is, there is not one iota of scientific evidence to support it. But the tiny changes of microevolution are presented as the mechanism by which the really big changes would take place over millions of years. The scientifically proven information that shows clearly that this does not happen goes ignored because it is not that the vast majority of the scientific community wants to believe. (And since most people just blindly trust what the scientists tell them, the general populous believes it to be proven … which is, if you missed it- faith)

There have been scientists who have tried to make a case for macroevolution, but under serious scientific scrutiny, their ideas and theories fall apart.

The idea that all living things have evolved from non-living matter is accepted by many scientists, even though the actual scientific evidence available indicates that it never happened. (The fossil record shows things appearing in the record suddenly; there are no transitional fossils between any species; the mathematical odds against spontaneous generation are so staggering that to believe it goes way beyond religious faith)

Yet, people are persuaded to believe that it is scientific.
People are persuaded to believe that because they buy the scientific "faith" they are somehow more intellegent than people who believe religiously based faith.

I personally, only believe what I have verifiable evidence for... I do not just trust what I am told by anyone- scientific, political or religious- I do the research, examine the evidence and then accept what the evidence supports. That is how I became one of Jehovah's Witnesses. That is where the evidence- scientific and religious- points if you let the evidence alone lead you and put aside the tendency toward confirmation bias.

Answer 6

Scientists go by that is proven through hypotheses and research, only going out on a limb when they themselves are experimenting with their own hypotheses.

Religion is too malleable, too easily twisted and corrupted by evil people, to give any redeeming intellectual value.

Answer 7

Apparently the devout don't practice what they preach.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Answer 8

I'd say scientists are about the same as the rest of us, judging from those I've known. Some are brilliant. Some are average. Some are dumb as posts.

Answer 9

Yes, religious folk would get better response if they weren't so dogmatic.

On the other hand, this whole "is pluto a planet" thing was rather childish too.

Answer 10

You're absolutely correct. However the exclusivity of religions has not stopped them from flourishing. They thrive whether we "like" them or not.