Intelligent People Are Less Likely to Be Religious

I'll begin by addressing a number of points you brought up: 1) "The rise of highly intellectual thinkers was not because of their religion, But in spite of it. " I would disagree with this statement and the example you gave of Christianity leading to the Dark Ages in Europe. There are a number of examples of highly intellectual thinkers that credit their intelligence as a result of the religion they follow. Rene Descartes, A prominent French philosopher, Wrote in his book, "Meditations on First Philosophy, " about the existence of God and in it, He begins by discrediting the existence of anything whose existence he is not certain of. By the end of his third meditation, He uses a logical proof statement to the objective existence of God. Descartes Meditations was an incredibly influential book and his philosophical statements directly impacted the evolution of the modern day scientific method. His intelligence and influence grew out of his religiosity and I would argue that if he were not religious, He would not have appreciated and helped to further the study of philosophy and his book, Meditations, Would not have been written, Directly impacting the future built on science we live in today. I could say the same thing about other religions as well, Like the influence of Confucius and Buddha on the East and South Asian civilizations, Respectively, As well. Confucian social order is a monumental part of Chinese, Korean and Japanese sociology and the technological advancements of each of those societies grew as a result of their religion and helped foster generations of incredibly intelligent and religious thinkers. Buddhism, While less of a science-oriented religion (or philosophy if you so wish), Has also had a lasting impact on Southern and Southeastern Asian societies. Intelligence at this point would be a subjective metric if you only considered scientific thinkers intelligent, But based on the previous definition of intelligence that I used, I would argue that Buddhist spiritual leaders are incredibly intelligent and I would think it difficult to argue that point. 2) Christianity as the cause of the Dark Ages I don't know if this is what you intended to say and feel free to clarify for me if I'm misunderstanding, But it seems that the crux of your argument stems with your dissatisfaction towards Christianity, Christians and the Christian God. You state that Christianity suppressed progress for a millennia in the time period known as the "Dark Ages. " As far as my understanding of global history goes, The Dark Ages was spurred on the by decline of the Roman empire after barbarian invasions and the fracturing of the thinly spread out empire plunged Europe (mostly Western Europe because Eastern Europe was succeeded by the Byzantine Empire) into intellectual "darkness. " This was not as a result of religion or Christianity, But as a result of foreign barbarian invasions, An inability of the Roman empire to manage its ambitious military expansion, And during the brunt of the Middle Ages, The lack of proper hygiene/medical education that led to the spread of the Bubonic plague and widespread mortality across Western Europe. If anything, The Middle Ages is actually a good argument against your claim because the Byzantine empire, Which I previously mentioned, Thrived during the Middle Ages and when Emperor Constantine of Byzantium converted to Christianity, The empire saw widespread social, Technological and political advancement and the empire experienced a golden age, Carrying on the legacy of the fallen Roman empire. 3) I'm just going to address your last two paragraphs together in one point because I've already spent way too many characters debunking two of your points from the first section. I agree with almost everything you posit in the second paragraph. Science is humble and science is self-correcting; however, Your point that religion is not humble, Does not encourage intellectual honesty, Integrity, Critical thinking, Reason, Logic and doubt is incorrect. Religion is humble. Not all religious people are. Religion inspired philosophers like Plato and Aristotle to use the Socratic method to separate what is true from what is false. Religion was, For many centuries, The only way that people could be educated and could become literate. This was not as a result of the suppression of other means of education, But because of the lack of organized educational means without religion as the motivator. Harvard, Yale and Princeton, And many of the oldest and most prestigious universities in America were founded by devout Christians. Harvard and Yale were affiliated with the Congregational Church and Princeton was founded by Presbyterians. You ask how a person can gain knowledge from dogmatic belief. I ask you how could a person have gained knowledge otherwise in the past if the only book you had available was the Bible because the only people who knew how to read or write were the religious leaders? You claim that "no single problem, Be it scientific, Philosophical, Or socio-political has ever been solved or even mildly ameliorated by faith. " I'll refer you to the Christmas Truce of 1914 and leave it there. There are many examples of problems that have been solved or at least positively impacted by people of faith. That is not to say that people of faith are not blameless, But the reality of this is that human nature is imperfect and that people tend to be a greater factor in the problems we face than the religions those people follow. As a final point, I'm going to be very clear and state that I am a practicing, Non-denominational, But Protestant Christian. This obviously skews my belief in favor of beliefs contrary to yours, But would you, In all honesty, Claim that I am not as intelligent as you based on my statements thus far? I'm a recent college graduate with two bachelors degrees, One Bachelors of Arts and one Bachelors of Science, And I am currently pursuing a Masters degree. Are these the qualities of a non-intellectual? I know your claim states that intelligent people are less likely to be religious, The operative word there being "less. " But based on the historical facts I've given you so far, Can you still support that claim? Interested to hear your response.