charles cure said:
see, i think you strike right at the heart of the point here. where you say "look this guy is a genius and he smokes even though it could kill him, and hes still a genius" i would say "look, this guy can figure out how to build the electronic brain that controls the space shuttle, but he cant even figure out not to smoke, what an idiot". this proves that how smart you are isnt all how intelligent you are. i would argue that a quantum physicist is still an idiot if he doesnt know enough to say, not put his hand in front of the blade on a table saw. smartness is proven through action. intellectual capability and potential for understanding abstract concepts are crucial parts of commiting intelligent acts. i would say you are still an idiot if you can be a brilliant architect and envision an elegant, functional building from conception all the way to reality, but somehow cannot see the big picture of religion's inherent impossibility, and the indirect negative effect of your belief in and support of a system that inevitably, over and over again throughout history results in violence, intolerance, and death.
To modify Newton's famous statement, then, we can only see as far as we do because we stand on the shoulders of idiots. Using your method of classification, many of the great minds fall into this category, after all.
The problem here is that religion is such a broad term. Let's look at two possible scenarios for your architect example:
Architect Bob designs and builds state-of-the-art buildings, and is also a fundamentalist, creationist, bible-thumping southern baptist. He uses bible passages to support his involvement in the KKK. He supports the idea of trying to Christianize the middle east. He makes snap judgements of everyone he meets based on their professed beliefs and church attendance. When someone in need asks for help, he might help them, depending on the color of their skin.
Architect Steve designs and builds state-of-the-art buildings, and he is a deist. He rarely communicates this to anyone. He does not support political causes that promote religious worldviews. His actions and treatment of other people is entirely rational and humanistic. He understands the violent past of organized religion, is appalled by it, and says so. Once in a while he might attend a service at a Unitarian church. Otherwise his beliefs are his private concern. But when someone less well off asks him for help, and he is capable of helping, he does the right thing.
They are both religious. Are they both idiots? Do they deserve to be put in the same cubbyhole? Is Steve somehow an accomplice to the evils done in the name of religion through history? If I only tell you that Bob and Steve are religious, you'd make your snap judgement that they are both idiots - but with more information, can you really do that? Even if you still find deism an idiotic idea, you cannot put these two people in the same category. What is critical in these judgements, to me at least, is to look at what people do, not what they think. Two people can share the same religious ideas and act on them very differently. Therefore it is not the religious idea that is the root cause of the action. It might be necessary, but not sufficient, for idiotic behavior. Although I'd argue against that myself - plenty of human evil has been generated without the help of religion.
It takes more than one word to describe something as complex as a human being and I don't see the merit in reaching for the first pejorative term that comes to mind to describe someone whose personal beliefs happen to put them under a very, very large umbrella of ideas - even if certain other notions under that umbrella have proven to be dangerous or idiotic.
It is like saying "John is idiotic because he supports the idea of government-and we all know that governments have brutally killed millions upon millions of people."
