Agreed, which by extension makes them more 'faithful' to that dogma to which they were raised or converted. Those raised in a particular faith will be more dogmatic, since religious teaching preceded critical thought.

Dogmatic may not be the proper word. All I am saying is that when very smart people (and by smart I mean the ability to get good at math, science and backgammon) are religious, they are much more likely to admit that they have a lot of doubts about the specifics of God than those who are religious and not so smart. And that this should give those people who are sure they know the specifics more pause than the supposed higher IQ of atheists (because atheists might be biased against God but super smart theists are obviously not.)

You're assuming we can't know certain things and since you assume that you expect more intelligent people to hesitate before making claims.

But people, like Th.D.s for example, have done something the ordinary intelligent person hasn't done. He's poured over the scriptures and checked out everything he could in detail. Intelligence doesn't necessarily ensure you will get that kind of tenacity and meticulous attention to detail. That type of detail work requires dedication.

I think the ability to recognize/quantify uncertainty is a trait that is valued by academically oriented people and this carries over into religious thought.

I noticed this in my own life when I was getting my undergrad degree at an Ivy. I'm Christian, but I have always been less certain/mainstream in aspects of my faith than most people. (For example, I dont have a problem with evolution and lean universalist, in that I believe the redemption brought by Jesus is powerful enough to overcome all sins (including not having faith)).

This made me a bit "weird" in my home church, but my campus fellowship group at college had HUGE variations in belief/certainty compared to even the same "brand" of fellowship at schools my friends went to. Pretty much everyone in my college fellowship was less certain about many aspects of their faith and openly will admit this.

I think this is most easily demonstrated by the phenomena of people "falling away" from the church and then coming back. (For the sake of this discussion I'm not considering people who go on to be "lifetime" agnostics) People who are less educated tend to be a little more "digital" in their faith, in that many times they are 100%, metaphysically certain that they agree with everything their church teaches, then all of a sudden something in their life causes them to have almost no trust in God, but a couple years later their 100% faith is restored. On the other hand, more educated people tend to be a little more "analog" and will stay at a more steady "75% Faith" (for lack of better term) throughout long periods of time. I think this is because academically minded people tend to more fully consider the various challenges their faith could face and build that into their confidence before they actually face those challenges.

ok

Only people who went to Dartmouth or Cornell say that...

lol

Where do you get the statistic that people who believe there is a God but don't accept the Bible tend to be more intelligent than people who accept the Bible? My impression is that the vast majority of non-atheists are also not believers in the Bible as God's word.

I have more trouble with what you mean by "specifics of God" than your use of dogmatic. I didn't explain before but what I mean is very intelligent, dogmatic people are that way about what the Bible says about God, but not about philosophy and theology that is mostly developed through reason. For instance, Craig is very dogmatic about certain things but not at all about topics like middle knowledge or the Big Bang. Though middle knowledge is certainly a "specific about God" it isn't derived directly from the Bible, so Craig says it's just one example of how we can reconcile free will and God's sovereignty (about which he would be dogmatic).

You have some selection bias here.... if I went to Harvard/Yale/Princeton I would be too busy bathing in my money to bother posting on the forum in the first place


Anyhow I find it amusing thats what people found interesting about the post. Was just trying to draw the distinction between my experience and my friend's experience at other schools. I could have said Top-20 to get same point across.

I was just joking... I thought your post was solid.

gotcha

by the way, are you a professor or did you leave academia?

You still don't get my point. There are many people who have studied the issue and believe believe that there is a God beyond a deistic God yet are not at all sure whether he is as Christians say or as Muslims say or as Muslims say. Smart people who have studied religions are more likely to feel this way than dumb people who have studied religions. I would assume that you at least think that such people are smarter than those who have studied religions and come away convinced that Islam is the correct religion.

I'm still in academia. I'm not yet 25 so I have a ways to go before being a prof... still haven't decided yet on if I am going that route.

I think it's obvious that smart people who are theists but haven't taken a stand will not be dogmatic about God. I'm not sure dumb people would be any more dogmatic. What I'm getting at is that what makes someone dogmatic is their belief that the Bible is God's Word, not intelligence or lack of it. Smart Christians may differ from dumb Christians concerning the content of their dogmatism, which relates to interpretative concerns and therefore has bearing on intelligence, but they are still dogmatic - I'm dogmatic about many things whether you classify me as a smart, dumb or in between Christian. But I'm not dogmatic because I think I've "figured it out" or because God has revealed anything to me specially, but because I think it's in the Bible and sufficiently clear that there is little reason to be uncertain.