How many great minds have been poisoned by religion?

[EGarrett]

From the Wikipedia page on Martin Luther King.

In 1959, he wrote The Measure of A Man, from which the piece What is Man?, an attempt to sketch the optimal political, social, and economic structure of society, is derived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_is_Man%3F_%28King%29

When I read this, I see a brilliant mind (and I hate the word "brilliant," so I don't use it lightly) that's afflicted with irrational ideas that are poisoning its attempt to make sense of the world. Seriously, let's look at some of this. Apparently, he's trying to figure out what the best structure of society should be...

He notices first that ‘man is a biological being with a physical body’, which is the ‘less than God’, as we think of ‘God as a being of pure spirit, lifted above the categories of time and space’. The psalmist would then say that God made man that way, and because of this ‘there is nothing wrong with it’ and that ‘everything God makes is good therefore there is nothing wrong with it’.

So he's trying to define man, but he's trying to start with the assumption that man was made by God...so then he sees that he has to figure that out, and tries to define God...where he's instantly stuck trying to discuss a nonsense concept, which he has no information about. Leaving him with nothing to do but try to make unsupported statements, stopping him from using any real observations or real logic...and thus completely destroying his attempt at philosophy or understanding before he can even start.

I wonder how much more he would've been if he hadn't been limited like this. He may not have achieved any more notoriety or accomplishments in the Civil Rights movement...but it's obvious this guy was TRYING for even more. He WANTED to understand the best society, and religion was a handcuff stopping him from getting there.

That's kind of tragic. I wonder how many great minds have sat down to try and figure out the world, and were frustrated and stopped because their mind was stuck with faulty programming that never let them get there. How much real understanding, how many brilliant ideas have we lost because of this?

[Kopji]

King is a harder example for me to see this in than some others, like Pascal. Pascal definitely struggled with an aspect of himself that was a true believer of irrational things.

To listen to King is amazing, there are few orators like him. The written text just does not fully convey the man's thoughts. But he speaks in a way that obviously his religion had great influence on. Without that influence and style, would anyone have ever listened? Great men can't be disconnected from the common so easily.

I guess that I don't agree with the 'religion as poison' theme. To me, religion is more like a box of paints we are given to express ideas. Our ideas get expressed by the limited tools we have unless we can somehow go beyond them. 'Religion' would have us believe that all things are best expressed with our little set of paints, and to want otherwise is evil or deviant.

I can admire King even with his faults because he was skillful with what he had, and wrote and spoke in a way that could help others shatter their chains even if his own would always, to some extent, remain.

[Tricky]

How many great minds have been poisoned by religion?
Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and Blaise Pascal come to mind. Of course, some of those are balanced by religious people whose minds, at least as regards objectivity, were not poisoned by religion. Among these are Galilio and Gregor Mendel.

The great danger of religion, as regards science in any case, is that it may force conclusions or assumptions, as in the case of Dr. King, which warp their objectivity toward certain topics. But it is quite possible to divorce your religion from your objectivity. I work with a number of religious scientists who, while probably not at the brilliance level of people like Kelvin, are quite highly regarded by those in their field. My micropaleontologist friend mentions her church frequently, but it doesn't stop her from using evolution to catagorize the ages of marine fossils and place them in a chronostratalogical column that is measured in millions of years.

Actually, Lord Kelvin was, in some respects, the victim of ignorance. Radioactivity had not been discovered when he dated the earth as quite young based on thermal decay.

[EGarrett]

King is a harder example for me to see this in than some others, like Pascal. Pascal definitely struggled with an aspect of himself that was a true believer of irrational things.I haven't read much about him, but since this is the second time I think I've heard/read his name in the past few days, I think I will look him up on wikipedia.

To listen to King is amazing, there are few orators like him. The written text just does not fully convey the man's thoughts. But he speaks in a way that obviously his religion had great influence on. Without that influence and style, would anyone have ever listened? Great men can't be disconnected from the common so easily.Good point, and I was thinking of this while I was writing the original post.

Unfortunately, I think seeing things through the "lens" of Christianity made his arguments have a greater effect with the mostly Christian population of the country. He can say "I'm a Christian and obviously God wanted this or that" and if it sounded right (seems like God would support equality etc), the Christians might say "wow, God really must want that!"

I don't know what the effect would've been if he had said "God or no God, society will work best if we give everyone the same chance to succeed and produce...so that we have the largest number of people from whom the best ideas and products can emerge." Obviously, that doesn't sound quite as sexy. But maybe written in a more interesting way. In my heart, when I do try putting it in an interesting way, it does sound and feel more effective to me. Hopefully I'm not biased.

I guess that I don't agree with the 'religion as poison' theme. To me, religion is more like a box of paints we are given to express ideas. Our ideas get expressed by the limited tools we have unless we can somehow go beyond them.What do you mean by "a box of paints we are given to express ideas?"

Do you mean religion is a tool that helps us express ideas...or do you mean religion just resulted from people trying to express their ideas without having a good way to do it?

The second one I agree with. If you mean the first, I'd have to disagree. How would religion help us express things?

'Religion' would have us believe that all things are best expressed with our little set of paints, and to want otherwise is evil or deviant.

I can admire King even with his faults because he was skillful with what he had, and wrote and spoke in a way that could help others shatter their chains even if his own would always, to some extent, remain.I admire King a lot. The picture where he's sitting with Lyndon Johnson and both of them look tired and pissed-off is one of my favorites, and of course he's one of the most influential men of the 20th Century. Probably the most influential among Americans.

I was just shocked when I sat down to read that "What is Man" article that King wrote. Since I like philosophy (well, good, clear functional philosophy) and I like studying intelligent people, the idea of an article by Martin Luther King where he tries to define the best possible society was so exciting. But then within two paragraphs it starts in trying to define God and talking about the soul and other nonsense ideas and I had to stop reading. It was just useless.

Without religion, maybe he could've gotten somewhere. Or I'd at least have something more interesting to read.

[EGarrett]

[B]
Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and Blaise Pascal come to mind. Of course, some of those are balanced by religious people whose minds, at least as regards objectivity, were not poisoned by religion. Among these are Galilio and Gregor Mendel.I assume Pascal was the author of Pascal's Wager. Which by the way, is an example of one of my greatest fears.

I think Pascal's Wager is an example of an intelligent mind using its intelligence to construct an incredibly intricate web in which to trap it's critical thinking processes so that it can believe it's own wishful thinking.

I'm scared that if I'm not careful I can end up doing the same thing.

The great danger of religion, as regards science in any case, is that it may force conclusions or assumptions, as in the case of Dr. King, which warp their objectivity toward certain topics.Yes, but I think with King it's warped his entire ability to perceive the world. He couldn't discuss society without his "God" programming turning his writing into near gibberish.

I also think that a lot of highly intelligent people are functional atheists or privately atheists, which is why they don't have this same problem that King had. He seemed to be a genuine believer...which is why I used the word "poisoned" to describe what I think it did to him instead of just making him slightly biased.

But it is quite possible to divorce your religion from your objectivity. I work with a number of religious scientists who, while probably not at the brilliance level of people like Kelvin, are quite highly regarded by those in their field. My micropaleontologist friend mentions her church frequently, but it doesn't stop her from using evolution to catagorize the ages of marine fossils and place them in a chronostratalogical column that is measured in millions of years.

Actually, Lord Kelvin was, in some respects, the victim of ignorance. Radioactivity had not been discovered when he dated the earth as quite young based on thermal decay.I'm checking up on Pascal now. When I get a chance I'll move on to probing Kelvin.

[Tricky]

I assume Pascal was the author of Pascal's Wager. Which by the way, is an example of one of my greatest fears.

I think Pascal's Wager is an example of an intelligent mind using its intelligence to construct an incredibly intricate web in which to trap it's critical thinking processes so that it can believe it's own wishful thinking.

I'm scared that if I'm not careful I can end up doing the same thing.
As long as you continue to recognize the trap, it is unlikely you will fall into it. But it is true that some traps are tricky. You may not recognize magical thinking until you have already formed some conclusions.

Yes, but I think with King it's warped his entire ability to perceive the world. He couldn't discuss society without his "God" programming turning his writing into near gibberish.
I'm not sure. I frankly don't think King should be recognized as being a great mind, but rather a great leader. His brilliance lay in knowing exactly the fine line to walk that would inspire people without scaring them. He used God as a tool to convince people that he was not dangerous. Though I'm certain he really was a Christian, I feel he used his faith as a pillow rather than a truncheon. But like all religious writers, he could not really make a logical case for God, so of course it is going to read like gibberish to a person who does not have faith.

I also think that a lot of highly intelligent people are functional atheists or privately atheists, which is why they don't have this same problem that King had. He seemed to be a genuine believer...which is why I used the word "poisoned" to describe what I think it did to him instead of just making him slightly biased.
You may be right, although I just think that different people are skeptical about different things. I cannot agree with the use of the word "poisoned" because poison, by definition, does harm. If more good than harm is done, how can it be poison?

[EGarrett]

As long as you continue to recognize the trap, it is unlikely you will fall into it. But it is true that some traps are tricky. You may not recognize magical thinking until you have already formed some conclusions.I hope that I'm avoiding it, and I think that I am. But the better I get at defending my points of view, the harder it becomes for other people to break me out of something if I've decided it's correct. One of my "mantra's" that I've been repeating for the last year or so is "Just because something sounds right, that doesn't mean it is right." Likewise, just because I (or you or everyone) can convince someone else that I'm correct doesn't mean I AM correct. I think the more knowledgeable and intelligent you are, the more you have to police yourself.

If only Pascal and King and others had the same policy.

I'm not sure. I frankly don't think King should be recognized as being a great mind, but rather a great leader.I can't argue if we're saying that a great mind produces something in value in math, philosophy, inventions etc. But it does seem clear that he was extremely intelligent. According to wikipedia he skipped multiple grades in school, I don't think it was an accident that he was able to walk the line he was when dealing with other people...and his philosophy papers are quite clear, even if the logic doesn't work.

The lsat thing is hard for me to describe (which means I need to take a moment and think about it but it's too early), but reading his papers sets off my high-IQ-detector (I guess that's sort of like a BS detector or Gaydar, but for very smart people).

But like all religious writers, he could not really make a logical case for God, so of course it is going to read like gibberish to a person who does not have faith.Do you think it would make more sense to a Christian? I think it would be equally as useless, but they would simply not realize it and wouldn't use the term "gibberish" to describe it.

You may be right, although I just think that different people are skeptical about different things. I cannot agree with the use of the word "poisoned" because poison, by definition, does harm. If more good than harm is done, how can it be poison?In King's case, he was definitely overall more good...but the question is...did RELIGION do that good? If not, then I think we can say he was poisoned by it, though it didn't prove fatal to his intellectual life or his achievements.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Doug Henning.

[Senex]

Brother Niklaus (http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=112554&in_page_id=2)

[Radrook]

You'll find a list of scientists poisoned by religion at the following sites:

100 Scientists Who Shaped World History
Various lists of 100 scientists who shaped world history. ... 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God. On this page: ...
www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html


List of Christian thinkers in science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

[Tricky]

You'll find a list of scientists poisoned by religion at the following site:

100 Scientists Who Shaped World History
Various lists of 100 scientists who shaped world history. ... 50 Nobel Laureates and Other Great Scientists Who Believe in God. On this page: ...
www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html (http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html)

Considering how pervasive religion has been throughout history, I think it is statistically more remarkable that so many of those scientists were or are atheists. Many of them were listed as "Jewish" which is as much an ethnicity as a religion. Einstein (number two on the list) certainly did not follow the Jewish faith and declared openly that he had no belief in any sort of supernatural god. Others on the list, like Galilio were raised in the church, yet had to fight against the religion of their day to be heard.

For many others on that list, quite a few have no religion listed. It seems likely that their belief in god was not a factor in their work. I don't think you've made a very good case for the importance of religion in forming brilliant minds.

But I've already stated that I don't believe religion poisons minds. Neither does it improve them as far as I can tell.

It would be interesting to see what scientific advances have been based on religious studies. Can you indicate any?

[Wolfman]

Ummm....just a question here...but why single out religion?

How many great minds have been poisoned by bad parents? (And does that mean parents are bad?)

How many great minds have been poisoned by wrong teachings passed on to them by their elders (and does that mean that our elders should teach us nothing?)

And what about those for whom religion served as an inspiration -- an inspiration to persevere in the face of terrible suffering, or to strive for moral change in the face of significant opposition/persecution?

Show me pretty much any great man/woman, and I'll be able to pick their life apart in such a way that I can 'prove' that something 'poisoned' them. Humans have weaknesses, humans make mistakes. That is part of the human condition. In my opinion, trying to blame something like religion for this simply distracts us from the essential fallibility that is part and parcel of being human, and that affects every human, theist or atheist.

Create an entirely atheist world, a world entirely devoid of any religious belief whatsoever...and you'll find our "great people" to be every bit as subject to various weaknesses and 'poisons' that affect them, and prevent them from reaching 100% of their full potential.

I'm not defending religion, or saying it is 'good'; just that I believe it is more a symptom of such problems, not a cause of them.

[Silentknight]

King is a harder example for me to see this in than some others, like Pascal. Pascal definitely struggled with an aspect of himself that was a true believer of irrational things.
In the same vein as Pascal, I would also say Rene Descartes, whose sincerity Pascal openly doubted. I have a lot of respect for him and what he accomplished, and I can tell that he felt conflicted even when he professed certainty about God as the basis for his thinking. It sickens me to see religious apologists abuse his philosophy to try to prove that God exists. The kind of God he believed in was very different from the one they believe in.
I guess that I don't agree with the 'religion as poison' theme. To me, religion is more like a box of paints we are given to express ideas. Our ideas get expressed by the limited tools we have unless we can somehow go beyond them. 'Religion' would have us believe that all things are best expressed with our little set of paints, and to want otherwise is evil or deviant.
I agree with this analogy. One can use a box of paints to create anything from ugly random smudges to a stunning masterpiece. Or some people may choose to sniff those paints just to get high, to the detriment of everyone around them, and encourage others to do the same.
To listen to King is amazing, there are few orators like him. The written text just does not fully convey the man's thoughts. But he speaks in a way that obviously his religion had great influence on. Without that influence and style, would anyone have ever listened? Great men can't be disconnected from the common so easily.
(moved paragraph for simplicity)

I can admire King even with his faults because he was skillful with what he had, and wrote and spoke in a way that could help others shatter their chains even if his own would always, to some extent, remain.
I remember hearing that King was a minister, first and foremost, and this was what shaped his views and the causes he fought for. I'm definitely not one of those atheists who sees him as "poisoned" by religion, as if virtue and religion were mutually exclusive. To see him that way would be to make the same mistake as Christians do, whenever they say that any bad Christians were not "true Christians" in order to keep their ranks pure. I see King as a good Christian, simple as that, and I think we could use more like him.

As anti-religious as I admit I am, I think "poisoned" is the wrong word to use. Religion is an influence in people's lives, and what concerns me is not the simple presence of religion, but in which direction that influence extends.

[Tricky]

Ummm....just a question here...but why single out religion?

How many great minds have been poisoned by bad parents? (And does that mean parents are bad?)

How many great minds have been poisoned by wrong teachings passed on to them by their elders (and does that mean that our elders should teach us nothing?)

And what about those for whom religion served as an inspiration -- an inspiration to persevere in the face of terrible suffering, or to strive for moral change in the face of significant opposition/persecution?

Show me pretty much any great man/woman, and I'll be able to pick their life apart in such a way that I can 'prove' that something 'poisoned' them. Humans have weaknesses, humans make mistakes. That is part of the human condition. In my opinion, trying to blame something like religion for this simply distracts us from the essential fallibility that is part and parcel of being human, and that affects every human, theist or atheist.

Create an entirely atheist world, a world entirely devoid of any religious belief whatsoever...and you'll find our "great people" to be every bit as subject to various weaknesses and 'poisons' that affect them, and prevent them from reaching 100% of their full potential.

I'm not defending religion, or saying it is 'good'; just that I believe it is more a symptom of such problems, not a cause of them.
:clap:

[Kopji]

...What do you mean by "a box of paints we are given to express ideas?"

Do you mean religion is a tool that helps us express ideas...or do you mean religion just resulted from people trying to express their ideas without having a good way to do it?

The second one I agree with. If you mean the first, I'd have to disagree. How would religion help us express things?...

I can tell that I have trouble breaking into a common mindset about religion, even among atheists and I promise I'm working on a better way to explain it. Religion seems far more simple to me. :)

What I mean is that there is an evolved creative irrationality that is an integral part of being human, that can manifest itself as 'religion' (among other, better things). That's why I would not compare religion to a brush, but rather the paints. Our 'human brushes' that create religion are the same that create things of art and beauty.

So to me, it is something of a mistake to say that religion 'inspires' art; rather it is something deeper that inspires both. I would not assert that religion was bad for everyone, (a poison) but I would say that it is not good for everyone.

I admire King, but also see that his oration's power came at least partly from his religious temperament. How he believed was sometimes more important than what, but as in the example you gave, the 'what' got in the way. I suppose I'd call it being stuck in a rut. :D