MsHarmony, I'm really and truly not trying to focus on arguing with you, its just that I disagree strongly with several things you've said. While I'm not terribly impressed by the 'evidence' and argument presented for 'secular people being smarter than religious people', your response is even weaker. When discussing general trends, a half dozen examples are pretty much meaningless. The fact that these examples are famous/recognizable people only has significance for the foolish - the same people who will buy something from an infomercial because they recognize the celebrity that endorses the product. Further, a few of your examples - while 'being members' of a religion, were also anti-religionists in their own way.

To me, the word 'or' implies either 'mutual exclusivity' or an 'alternative hypothesis' and I don't see how this would apply to our conversation... so I wonder if we are not understanding each other.

I agree that the educated remain susceptible - especially if we aren't clarifying the nature of the 'education'. (Hell, a person can go to Liberty University and consider themselves "educated.") As far as 'equally' susceptible - I see no reason to assume the susceptibility would be 'equal'.

As another spin on this conversation, it may be that the reverence and awe some scientists have for their fields of study is a manifestation of this same (supposed) genetic inclination.

Or it would make educated and uneducated equally susceptible.

Considering that religion doesn't require a brain to have any thoughts whatsoever except follow blindly, I would disagree.

Religion was held to a different standard in olden days then intelligence.

What I mean by this is there was no intelligence needed to be religious. You just accepted what you were taught and went on without question.

Religions are illogical and unscientific if examined by scientific rules so there cannot be a scientific agreement between the two.

There have been a whole lot of intelligent folks in our past who gave religion a free pass on the intelligence of religion aspect just for the reverence they were taught to give it.

By no means does that make religion the intelligent choice as implied by this thread.

To believe anything blindly is foolish, no matter what it is.

There are SO many verses throughout the bible that state SPECIFICALLy to give thought and be prudent,,,the whole Blind Faith thing is constantly misstated. Intelligence is required(not in the sense of knowledge of technology which is irrelevant to the history of life)and encouraged.

"If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into the ditch." (Matthew 15:14)

A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps. (Pr 14:15)

Test everything. Hold on to the good. (1 Thes 5:21)

The time and dedication taken to write the book of events recorded in the bible, was of itself, an attempt at providing something SOLID for people to study and try to understand. If BLIND FAITH was all that was needed, simple verbal history would be all that would be required,each generation could simply say to the next,,,HE existed, believe it, end of story.

The bible gives us plenty of information to consume.

>>>The time and dedication taken to write the book of events recorded in the bible, was of itself, an attempt at providing something SOLID for people to study and try to understand. If BLIND FAITH was all that was needed, simple verbal history would be all that would be required,each generation could simply say to the next,,,HE existed, believe it, end of story.

The bible gives us plenty of information to consume.<<<

I have been with you most of the way, Msharmony, but here we deviate. The "time and dedication" was done by Church Councils, such as the infamous Nicean Council during the early part of the 1st millennium. The "church" decided that the Scriptures, as then existed, held too many contradictions, and elicited more questions than answers; thus it was decided by the these councils on which Scriptural passages to keep, which to redact, and which to edit.

The stated purpose was to make the Scriptures more "learn-able and understood" by the common, illiterate, and mass population of the time. Further edicts, both Papal and Council. constantly changed, erased, and edited these Scriptural passages until they resembled more of the various "Bibles" that we are familiar with today.

In short, the Church, its' Councils, and other well-meaning personages "decided" what we should know. To believe that the Biblical texts are "God-given, and thus inviolable" is to ignore the Church's own history and literature.

Intelligence and faith are not exclusive concepts.