Faith vs. Intellect

[Aubrey]

I have been sharing my faith with DS and I am taking DS to a UU church cuz it fits us "best" out of any organized religion. I strongly suspect DS is highly gifted too - but he is too young to test right now. Not that it would change anything. He is very sensitive, intuitive, and really questions things. Just like me. I like that UU encourages free thought and questioning, but supports a close relationship with GOD by whatever name at the same time.

 

This is an important point--all of these decisions & ideas are so magnified when one has children. I actually had a lady tell me recently, "Your children are watching you. If you want them to go to church, you should set a good example."

 

As if I don't know that. As if that isn't a heart-stopping idea, that I have to somehow figure things out in time to give my dc a good foundation.

 

As if "going to church" were *ever* a goal, in & of itself!

[Lovedtodeath]

I found that quote from 2 Peter hard to understand, lol (so much for being gifted/intelligent) so I looked it up in my translation.

 

14 Hence, beloved ones, since YOU are awaiting these things, do YOUR utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, 16 speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17 YOU, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on YOUR guard that YOU may not be led away with them by the error of the law-defying people and fall from YOUR own steadfastness. 18 No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him [be] the glory both now and to the day of eternity.

 

This is an important point--all of these decisions & ideas are so magnified when one has children. I actually had a lady tell me recently, "Your children are watching you. If you want them to go to church, you should set a good example."

 

As if I don't know that. As if that isn't a heart-stopping idea, that I have to somehow figure things out in time to give my dc a good foundation.

 

As if "going to church" were *ever* a goal, in & of itself!

I struggle with the exact same things.

[happygrrl]

I only have a second here (off to appointments) but wanted to chime in with my experience. I'll try to come back to this later.

 

I was labeled profoundly gifted in school. Yeah, there was a huge sense of alienation that accompanied me in school, life and church. I honestly was rejected by the institutions on many counts, though thankfully there were a few supportive individuals along the way. I was constantly asked to check my gifts at the door, thank you very much!

 

I have been to many churches and explored and become involve with several religions. After giving up hope that there was a place for me in community, I found the Eastern Orthodox church. Finally! A place where *all* of me is addressed and welcomed. There are several gifted people in our congregation, and the spectrum ranges to the sweet mentally retarded woman I sit near every week. All of us serve in some capacity. Perhaps I have found an anomaly and other EO churches are not like this, though I have been to several and they seem similar (maybe the tone of the church depends on the priest?). Anyhow, I am thankful that I found it before ditching the organized thing all together. I have seen great changes in my family and in my personal journey, so according to "money where your mouth is" standards this church rocks it out. I think it must have something to do with the very nature of the church being hesitant to create definitions and dogma, choosing to be cautious about what we don't know (so easy to fall into grave errors when one is making fences to keep people in or out, yeah?).

 

Off to the orthodontist!

[MamaSheep]

Completely agreed. That said. . ..

 

I know what you're getting at, Aubrey.

 

The "have children, serve your family, work at home, love your husband" works. . . . . for a time. . . . .but then . . . . . I don't know. Maybe you turn 40. Or your kids become teenagers. Or you get tired.

 

I had a moms meeting last week. About 6 friends, all of whom have middle schoolers or up, came. By the end of the night, we all talked about needing something to "Feed" our souls - pottery, or in-depth Bible study, or running marathons - something.

 

I'm feeling it. I never thought I would. But I am.

 

What I have never understood is why so many people view "have children, serve your family, work at home, love your husband" as antithetical to feed our souls, pottery, marathon running, in depth study of any topic including scripture/theology/religion. Why is that? I see no reason a mother can't raise kids AND run marathons. I know several SAHM's who do just exactly that. Why do people think that being an "at home" sort of gal means you have to give up every other aspect of your being?

[Aubrey]

I found that quote from 2 Peter hard to understand, lol (so much for being gifted/intelligent) so I looked it up in my translation.

 

14 Hence, beloved ones, since YOU are awaiting these things, do YOUR utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, 16 speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17 YOU, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on YOUR guard that YOU may not be led away with them by the error of the law-defying people and fall from YOUR own steadfastness. 18 No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him [be] the glory both now and to the day of eternity.

 

I did the same thing, lol! (But I wasn't going to admit it.) :lol:

[ShutterBug]

I haven't read all the replies so I'm just popping in quickly to post my answer.

 

Yes, I know someone who is intellectually gifted and a person of faith. My FIL (also our pastor) was born and raised Roman Catholic. When he was a young adult he declared himself an atheist. Throughout his early adult life as a medical student and then as a very gifted anesthesiologist he still declared there was no God. His IQ is in the range of 180+ which makes him profoundly gifted.

 

As I mentioned, before getting saved he was an avid atheist. He accepted Christ in his 30's and since then has put all his academic engergy into studying and teaching the word of God. He's since left his prestigious career as a highly sought after anesthesiologist to be a full time pastor at our church. He also has a local TV show a few times a week with sermon broadcasts, a weekly radio show and frequently guests on "Ask the Pastor".

 

He doesn't consider himself a particular denomination..just "Born Again".

 

Our church has a large, online, database of free downloadable sermons. If interested in what an "intellectually gifted" born again teacher sounds like, please feel free to pm me for the link :) .

[naturegirl7]

I want to say something to this, but I can't figure out what. It's like this awful feeling in the pit of my stomach. But, yeah, women have different "roles" in some churches.

 

In some ways it's beautiful: thinking of raising your family, feeding, clothing them, etc as an expression of worship & self-sacrifice...but... well, the thinking on that doesn't...well, it stops there. And I have a feeling...for many women...working w/in that box means...their insides are being hollowed out until eventually they have a crisis of faith. Hmm...I wonder if I should delete that. I bet it doesn't even make sense. :001_huh: :glare:

 

But yeah, I'm good w/ male-female manners. I'm fine w/ gender roles, to an extent. Not that anyone's asking! :lol:

 

It makes sense to me!!! So many of my SAHM friends feel the same way - even ones who are not religious! Women have a tendency to give and give and give of themselves until there is nothing left, and then give some more.

 

I am a working mama who wishes I could be home all the time with my child - I love caring for my child and my man - it makes me feel good inside, and being at work and having to say goodnight over the telephone 5 nights a week makes me feel hollow inside. It is horrid. But it is keeping that child fed, clothed, and recieving the precious medical care he needs.

 

That said, I do appreciate that I have a choice and the possibility of working and helping my family in this way. I wouldn't change that.

 

I don't want to be "just" a mother or "just" a wife. I don't fit neatly into a box. Oh no, Not me! LOL I like being a woman, a friend, a daughter, a sister, a mother, a wife, a nurse. But most of all I like being ME.

 

I do feel like I need some "ME" time - whether at home full time, or working full time. I need some "me" time to recharge myself so that I have more to give. Maybe it is read a stimulating book, take a class just for the fun of it, have coffee with a friend, walk on the beach alone, teach my childbirth classes - something that it just for ME.

I think that as women, we are so programmed to serve and to put the needs of others above our own - we lose sight of how special and important WE are, and lose the ability to serve and nuture ourselves.

Edited August 10, 2010 by naturegirl7

[Lovedtodeath]

 

What I have never understood is why so many people view "have children, serve your family, work at home, love your husband" as antithetical to feed our souls, pottery, marathon running, in depth study of any topic including scripture/theology/religion. Why is that? I see no reason a mother can't raise kids AND run marathons. I know several SAHM's who do just exactly that. Why do people think that being an "at home" sort of gal means you have to give up every other aspect of your being?

Yes. Balance, balance, balance. We had a recent WT article highlighting or God given responsibilities and caring for our own health (physical mental and spiritual) was listed, as well as these aspects of our family's health. I was so thankful as it is easy to find many people who have no balance, especially when trying to encourage me and emphasizing only a couple of (considered more spiritual) responsibilities. Edited August 10, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Aubrey]

I only have a second here (off to appointments) but wanted to chime in with my experience. I'll try to come back to this later.

 

I was labeled profoundly gifted in school. Yeah, there was a huge sense of alienation that accompanied me in school, life and church. I honestly was rejected by the institutions on many counts, though thankfully there were a few supportive individuals along the way. I was constantly asked to check my gifts at the door, thank you very much!

 

I have been to many churches and explored and become involve with several religions. After giving up hope that there was a place for me in community, I found the Eastern Orthodox church. Finally! A place where *all* of me is addressed and welcomed. There are several gifted people in our congregation, and the spectrum ranges to the sweet mentally retarded woman I sit near every week. All of us serve in some capacity. Perhaps I have found an anomaly and other EO churches are not like this, though I have been to several and they seem similar (maybe the tone of the church depends on the priest?). Anyhow, I am thankful that I found it before ditching the organized thing all together. I have seen great changes in my family and in my personal journey, so according to "money where your mouth is" standards this church rocks it out. I think it must have something to do with the very nature of the church being hesitant to create definitions and dogma, choosing to be cautious about what we don't know (so easy to fall into grave errors when one is making fences to keep people in or out, yeah?).

 

Off to the orthodontist!

 

I'm very drawn to the EO church. I'd expected someone to say basically what you've said.

 

And the bolded part? Perfect way to describe what I'm trying to say.

[Lovedtodeath]

I did the same thing, lol! (But I wasn't going to admit it.) :lol:

Oh thank you, I feel better!:D

[Marie in Oh]

I'm guessing...& it's just a guess...that gifted men of faith will tend to be in leadership positions. Gifted women...I'm less sure. I know there are some leadership positions for some of them. But overall? There seem to be fewer gifted women in protestant churches than elsewhere in life. I'm wondering if I've failed to notice them, if they're in other faiths, or if they're predominantly atheist.

 

My circle of friends are mostly reformed protestants. We span the globe becasue of husbands with military careers. Four of my closest friends I would put on the gifted spectrum- IQs greater than 150 or so. All homeschool moms, one is a lingusit/ musician, one is a chemical engineer/ musician, one is a physicist/ musician, and one is a nurse/ pastor's wife. I think the church is full of brilliant women. Seriously. Perhaps it is the denomination. I don't know. But it has not been my experience at all.

[MamaSheep]

I found that quote from 2 Peter hard to understand, lol (so much for being gifted/intelligent) so I looked it up in my translation.

 

14 Hence, beloved ones, since YOU are awaiting these things, do YOUR utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace. 15 Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given him also wrote YOU, 16 speaking about these things as he does also in all [his] letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unsteady are twisting, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17 YOU, therefore, beloved ones, having this advance knowledge, be on YOUR guard that YOU may not be led away with them by the error of the law-defying people and fall from YOUR own steadfastness. 18 No, but go on growing in the undeserved kindness and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him [be] the glory both now and to the day of eternity.

 

I struggle with the exact same things.

 

I did the same thing, lol! (But I wasn't going to admit it.) :lol:

 

Heh...sorry. FWIW I have to go look stuff up all the time myself. And I hope if I say anything else that's incomprehensible you'll tell me so and give me the chance to try again. :)

[ktgrok]

My IQ is in the 160s, so I think that puts me into the genius range, whatever that means. And my faith is VERY important to me. I'm a Christian, and attend and Episcopal Church. I will say though that intellectually I'm more Orthodox in my leanings. I think there was at one time a great tradition of learning in the church, not just theology but all learning. (jesuits). I hope we get back to that. I have studied comparitive religion at the college level, and find theology fascinating and certainly full of interest. And I'm a woman :)

[Cedarmom]

I have never been labeled as gifted, but I do like to think things through. I also like to question and know the why of things. Now I am a house churcher, which I am enjoying. I think the discussing and thinking is why I enjoy it most. We talk about the scriptures, ask questions and delve deep. My friends in the church are used to me, so they aren't surprised by mydesire to dig deep (they share the same desire) I now have homschool friends who I also can discuss the christian life with, and we have indepth discussions. When I attended a Baptist church and we attended Sunday Bible study, I would try and dig deeper and usually offended someone. So, I skipped the Sunday Bible study and just did the church. But I was told I over thought things. I think overall, housechurch is a better fit for me.

[MamaSheep]

I'm bummed. I'm enjoying this discussion but I have to go take dd to her swim lesson. :( I just know when I get back there will be 42 pages of interesting stuff I won't have time to read through because I told myself I have GOT to muck out the school room today and start getting it set up for school next week. Just having the lesson plans on paper is not prepped enough. Sigh...

 

I'll sneak back in for a peek occasionally though.

 

Audry, I'm really curious now. What kinds of things would you ask at church if you felt you could that you refrain from asking because of the atmosphere there? If that even makes sense...lol...

[Marylou]

I'm bummed. I'm enjoying this discussion but I have to go take dd to her swim lesson. :( I just know when I get back there will be 42 pages of interesting stuff I won't have time to read through because I told myself I have GOT to muck out the school room today and start getting it set up for school next week. Just having the lesson plans on paper is not prepped enough. Sigh...

 

I'll sneak back in for a peek occasionally though.

 

Audry, I'm really curious now. What kinds of things would you ask at church if you felt you could that you refrain from asking because of the atmosphere there? If that even makes sense...lol...

 

 

Same here! The school room is a wreck and I have to work there today. No swim lessons, but little people are waiting to eat!

[Ester Maria]

Intellectual arrogance...could be just thinking you know more than the next guy. For ex, I've known people who use what they know...or their ability to think/communicate quickly...to humiliate others, to trap them w/ their own words, to mock their attempts at communication, to "win" arguments but not by fair wins, if that makes sense.

 

Intellectual modesty, I'd say, is the ability to phrase questions/opinions in a respectful way. Obviously no insults, but not leaning on one's education or intellect as "proof" of something. Because, obviously, it's not. I'd say it means really listening...that's hard to do, I'd think, if one is intellectually arrogant...one's head would be too full of one's own "right" ideas.

 

Maybe? :001_smile:

Thank you for the explanation. :)

 

However, I do have a slight problem with one of these things you brought up... What if somebody truly does know more than the next guy, especially if that knowledge is a result of years of thought and scholarship (formal OR informal, as self-taught people at times basically do the equivalent of a formal university formation in a field!) on a considerably higher academic level?

 

If I recall well, we're actually colleagues by one of our majors :), and while I might disagree with the way you approach literature and you might totally disagree with my pretty radical formalism in some instances... I will by default consider your opinion seriously, since it's the opinion of an expert. An expert I maybe professionally disagree with, but still, a person that has put years of serious scholarship into the same field and whose knowledge of literary theory exceeds that of your average Joe and Jane. And even if you, in some of your opinions, agree with Joe and Jane, those are still two different opinions, as the paths of getting there are different: while yours or mine is a result of serious scholarship, theirs might be merely an "aesthetical preference" or quite a randomly taken position (they aren't well-acquainted with the alternatives, the knowledge of literary theory rests on the high school level, etc.). I can take yours and Joe's position as "equals" when talking to you if and only if Joe happens to have informally studied the same field to an approximately same extent and can debate on an approximately same level. No, he doesn't have to have read the same books one by one, but if I'm to take Joe as a serious interlocutor on the highest level *I* can talk to (and this seems to be the thread about considering things on those levels), then Joe's knowledge shouldn't be considerably smaller than mine. We must be able to work with a broad shared net of associations, concepts, works read, etc. It's totally unimportant who has a piece of paper confirming him to be an expert in the field - it's the general quality and quantity of knowledge that have to meet, in order for me to talk with Joe on the highest level I can discuss things.

 

I'm not sure if I'm putting this clearly, just trying to illustrate that your disagreement with me regarding formalism, or documentary hypothesis, or Homeric question, you name it, will NOT be the same disagreement as a disagreement with somebody whose familiarity with the topic remains on high school and popular culture level. In order for us to talk as equals, we must BE equals first. The notion of extreme political corretness that the anglophone countries take part in by allowing all opinions to be considered as "equally good and important"... doesn't quite click with me.

 

Does it mean that I am going to be blatantly rude and dismiss an interested person that happens to lack scholarship, trying to "catch" them? No, but until they've got to the point where our knowledge is more or less shared, I cannot take their opinions as seriously as I take the opinions of people who know as much as I do - let alone those of the numerous people for whom I know that they know more, have studied more, have studied more in-depth and dealth with the areas I'm an amateur in on a considerably higher level.

 

(Of course, other than the breadth and depth of knowledge involved, an important note is also the lucidity and striving to think in a logical, organized fashion without committing the errors of logic and argumentation.)

 

So what I'm trying to say is... In this context we're talking about... Is it intellectual arrogance if I DO believe that one's education (formal or informal) in the field and intellect, as in a way of processing that information and presenting when talking, the way of reaching conclusions, truly do make a difference and do produce inherently different positions?

 

There's knowing what logos means because you read it an article, or heard it once by somebody... and there's knowing what it means because you can access the original text and know about its linguistic context. It's a banal example, but talks about religion are full of such examples and I happen to think that maybe... just maybe... we should be allowed not to take equally seriously an opinion based on knowing a random, decontextualized piece of knowledge - and an opinion based on a structured, contextualized study and years of scholarship behind it, even if it's technically the same position those two peple take.

 

I really, really have an issue with "it's all equal but different" and "we're all equals when we discuss". While I agree with you that each person should be treated with respect and that in an honest, good-hearted debate there is no place for contempt and cynicism towards those who know less and/or take a different stance, I truly believe that some there are "superior" and "inferior" opinions and ways of thinking (with many shades and hudes and in-between stages).

 

That being said, I also believe in a virtue of "intellect modesty" and self-constraint in certain circles... You do not always have to show what you know, especially not in a way that will hurt other people or come across as direct provoking. Which is one of the reason why I generally refrain talking about the holy trinity :D of "politics, religion and intimacy" and all of the topics derived from them, the latter in nearly all cases imaginable, and the former two in cases where I'm not absolutely sure that the people involved WANT a discussion. (i.e. not questioning other people's faiths and reasons for the sake of doing it... but if somebody comes on an online forum whose purpose is an anonymous discussion and willingly enters a discussion of the kind, then yes, it's a situation of "you explicitly show that want to discuss it, so let's".)

Edited August 10, 2010 by Ester Maria

[Aubrey]

Thank you for the explanation. :)

 

However, I do have a slight problem with one of these things you brought up... What if somebody truly does know more than the next guy, especially if that knowledge is a result of years of thought and scholarship (formal OR informal, as self-taught people at times basically do the equivalent of a formal university formation in a field!) on a considerably higher academic level?

 

If I recall well, we're actually colleagues by one of our majors :), and while I might disagree with the way you approach literature and you might totally disagree with my pretty radical formalism in some instances... I will by default consider your opinion seriously, since it's the opinion of an expert. An expert I maybe professionally disagree with, but still, a person that has put years of serious scholarship into the same field and whose knowledge of literary theory exceeds that of your average Joe and Jane. And even if you, in some of your opinions, agree with Joe and Jane, those are still two different opinions, as the paths of getting there are different: while yours or mine is a result of serious scholarship, theirs might be merely an "aesthetical preference" or quite a randomly taken position (they aren't well-acquainted with the alternatives, the knowledge of literary theory rests on the high school level, etc.). I can take yours and Joe's position as "equals" when talking to you if and only if Joe happens to have informally studied the same field to an approximately same extent and can debate on an approximately same level. No, he doesn't have to have read the same books one by one, but if I'm to take Joe as a serious interlocutor on the highest level *I* can talk to (and this seems to be the thread about considering things on those levels), then Joe's knowledge shouldn't be considerably smaller than mine. We must be able to work with a broad shared net of associations, concepts, works read, etc. It's totally unimportant who has a piece of paper confirming him to be an expert in the field - it's the general quality and quantity of knowledge that have to meet, in order for me to talk with Joe on the highest level I can discuss things.

 

I'm not sure if I'm putting this clearly, just trying to illustrate that your disagreement with me regarding formalism, or documentary hypothesis, or Homeric question, you name it, will NOT be the same disagreement as a disagreement with somebody whose familiarity with the topic remains on high school and popular culture level. In order for us to talk as equals, we must BE equals first. The notion of extreme political corretness that the anglophone countries take part in by allowing all opinions to be considered as "equally good and important"... doesn't quite click with me.

 

Does it mean that I am going to be blatantly rude and dismiss an interested person that happens to lack scholarship, trying to "catch" them? No, but until they've got to the point where our knowledge is more or less shared, I cannot take their opinions as seriously as I take the opinions of people who know as much as I do - let alone those of the numerous people for whom I know that they know more, have studied more, have studied more in-depth and dealth with the areas I'm an amateur in on a considerably higher level.

 

(Of course, other than the breadth and depth of knowledge involved, an important note is also the lucidity and striving to think in a logical, organized fashion without committing the errors of logic and argumentation.)

 

So what I'm trying to say is... In this context we're talking about... Is it intellectual arrogance if I DO believe that one's education (formal or informal) in the field and intellect, as in a way of processing that information and presenting when talking, the way of reaching conclusions, truly do make a difference and do produce inherently different positions?

 

There's knowing what logos means because you read it an article, or heard it once by somebody... and there's knowing what it means because you can access the original text and know about its linguistic context. It's a banal example, but talks about religion are full of such examples and I happen to think that maybe... just maybe... we should be allowed not to take equally seriously an opinion based on knowing a random, decontextualized piece of knowledge - and an opinion based on a structured, contextualized study and years of scholarship behind it, even if it's technically the same position those two peple take.

 

I really, really have an issue with "it's all equal but different" and "we're all equals when we discuss". While I agree with you that each person should be treated with respect and that in an honest, good-hearted debate there is no place for contempt and cynicism towards those who know less and/or take a different stance, I truly believe that some there are "superior" and "inferior" opinions and ways of thinking (with many shades and hudes and in-between stages).

 

That being said, I also believe in a virtue of "intellect modesty" and self-constraint in certain circles... You do not always have to show what you know, especially not in a way that will hurt other people or come across as direct provoking. Which is one of the reason why I generally refrain talking about the holy trinity :D of "politics, religion and intimacy" and all of the topics derived from them, the latter in nearly all cases imaginable, and the former two in cases where I'm not absolutely sure that the people involved WANT a discussion. (i.e. not questioning other people's faiths and reasons for the sake of doing it... but if somebody comes on an online forum whose purpose is an anonymous discussion and willingly enters a discussion of the kind, then yes, it's a situation of "you explicitly show that want to discuss it, so let's".)

 

Ok, but how do people know who they're talking to? I don't go around w/ my credentials taped to my forehead, kwim? So sometimes I'm unfairly dismissed. I'd hate to do the same to other people, so until I know that they have...less experience, ed, whatever, it's not really fair to assume that they have less or to talk down to them.

 

Now, then, what if they *do* have less? Sure it shows. It makes conversations difficult. They're often dogmatic about what they "know." There is nothing kind or productive about me pointing that out. Usually? I simply try to end the conversation graciously, which often involves thanking them for sharing their "insight." They go away feeling that they have enlighted me; I go away profoundly lonely. But there's really no good alternative that I can see.

 

Shoot. I didn't mean to talk about myself at all. :leaving:

[Lovedtodeath]

Ok, but how do people know who they're talking to? I don't go around w/ my credentials taped to my forehead, kwim? So sometimes I'm unfairly dismissed. I'd hate to do the same to other people, so until I know that they have...less experience, ed, whatever, it's not really fair to assume that they have less or to talk down to them.

 

Now, then, what if they *do* have less? Sure it shows. It makes conversations difficult. They're often dogmatic about what they "know." There is nothing kind or productive about me pointing that out. Usually? I simply try to end the conversation graciously, which often involves thanking them for sharing their "insight." They go away feeling that they have enlighted me; I go away profoundly lonely. But there's really no good alternative that I can see.

 

Shoot. I didn't mean to talk about myself at all. :leaving:

Yes, I can see your point and Esther Maria's point. There are some people's thoughts that will not be as valuable as others in some areas. But there are many very, very educated people do not have a degree in their area of education. And I can agree that you will see what they can intellectually discuss as they discuss it.

[Jayne J]

I'm very drawn to the EO church. I'd expected someone to say basically what you've said.

 

And the bolded part? Perfect way to describe what I'm trying to say.

 

 

I am also drawn to the EO church, but wonder about the role of women there--isn't it just as limited as most Protestant denom. and moreso than others (in which they can serve as pastors or deacons etc.)? In what capacity can women serve in leadership positions within the EO Church?

 

BTW, the EO church does seem, IMHO, to have a lot of room for intellectuals to think and ask and question, and historically seems to be very interested in seeking and articulating difficult answers, so I see how it would be very satisfying on that level.

[Jami]

I'm guessing...& it's just a guess...that gifted men of faith will tend to be in leadership positions. Gifted women...I'm less sure. I know there are some leadership positions for some of them. But overall? There seem to be fewer gifted women in protestant churches than elsewhere in life. I'm wondering if I've failed to notice them, if they're in other faiths, or if they're predominantly atheist.

 

My circle of friends are mostly reformed protestants. We span the globe becasue of husbands with military careers. Four of my closest friends I would put on the gifted spectrum- IQs greater than 150 or so. All homeschool moms, one is a lingusit/ musician, one is a chemical engineer/ musician, one is a physicist/ musician, and one is a nurse/ pastor's wife. I think the church is full of brilliant women. Seriously. Perhaps it is the denomination. I don't know. But it has not been my experience at all.

 

My circle of friends is very similar to what you describe, Marie, except the military spouses. I've been a member of several PCA congregations and they have all been places where an academic/intellectual/highly gifted woman would be respected and comfortable. They have also been places which emphasize that the world's value system is not God's and that He chose the foolish things to shame the wise and raises up the humble to shame the proud. So yes, love the Lord Your God with all your mind, wrestle with deep questions, study to show yourself approved, but do it for His glory and not your own or because you fear not seeming like "enough" in the world's eyes as *just* a SAHM, homemaker, etc.

[Aubrey]

Yes, I can see your point and Esther Maria's point. There are some people's thoughts that will not be as valuable as others in some areas. But there are many very, very educated people do not have a degree in their area of education. And I can agree that you will see what they can intellectually discuss as they discuss it.

 

The problem is...what if one is "talked down to" because one is assumed to be...less...able to discuss things? Even other women do this to ea other--iow, it's not *just* a male-female issue. It seems quite rude to look the person in the eye & tell them to quit it. If only Bob Newhart fit in a girl's purse. :lol:

 

ETA: The problem is, usually only one person in the conversation can see a discrepancy.

[Kimber]

I haven't read the thread, but I read your question and in case this hasn't been mentioned--where one lives can a have a huge impact on whether or not one believes in God regardless of intellect.

 

I used to live near NASA where engineers, scientists, and PhD's are a dime a dozen. Those at my church, from what I knew of them were sincere devout Christians. But that's part of the bible belt, so I'm sure that has something to do with it.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

Now, then, what if they *do* have less? Sure it shows. It makes conversations difficult. They're often dogmatic about what they "know." There is nothing kind or productive about me pointing that out. Usually? I simply try to end the conversation graciously, which often involves thanking them for sharing their "insight." They go away feeling that they have enlighted me; I go away profoundly lonely. But there's really no good alternative that I can see.

 

Yes, now here you are just talking about bare-bones manners. Maybe it is because of my dad but I knew exactly what you meant by "intellectual arrogance."

[Aubrey]

I am also drawn to the EO church, but wonder about the role of women there--isn't it just as limited as most Protestant denom. and moreso than others (in which they can serve as pastors or deacons etc.)? In what capacity can women serve in leadership positions within the EO Church?

 

BTW, the EO church does seem, IMHO, to have a lot of room for intellectuals to think and ask and question, and historically seems to be very interested in seeking and articulating difficult answers, so I see how it would be very satisfying on that level.

 

I don't know how women are viewed, but if the women there tend to be more "intellectual"--not quite the word I want, but it will have to do--at least there would be a chance at meeting someone who didn't think one was...um...something.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Aubrey

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

"intellectual"--not quite the word I want, but it will have to do

 

I don't know about the word you want but I personally want "open to discussing the hard questions."

[Aubrey]

I don't know about the word you want but I personally want "open to discussing the hard questions."

 

Right. But...w/ a sense of humor & not taking themselves too seriously & not pretending everything is always good or always makes sense.

 

And...I like to ask questions that come across as *very* basic. Dh & my mom understand what I'm asking, but other people rarely do.

[Food4Thought]

What I have never understood is why so many people view "have children, serve your family, work at home, love your husband" as antithetical to feed our souls, pottery, marathon running, in depth study of any topic including scripture/theology/religion. Why is that? I see no reason a mother can't raise kids AND run marathons. I know several SAHM's who do just exactly that. Why do people think that being an "at home" sort of gal means you have to give up every other aspect of your being?

 

Honestly, I see no reason why a gifted mother choosing to stay at home and educate her children should be any less than a woman out in the working world being seen for her work. I choose not to run marathons, because my marathon includes taking care of my family. I don't even care to take classes or "be successful" in other ways. Being here at home is *it* for me.

 

And to answer one of the OP's original questions:

My involvement in the church may not be seen by a lot of people. I devote myself to graphic design, publishing, and editing work. I also spend a lot of one-on-one time mentoring other women, teaching them what the Bible really says and means *in the real world* of mothering and working and being a wife. So if you came to my church, its likely that you wouldn't see me as a worker/leader there. But I am, and I know that the work I do is important as well as appreciated.

I'm not always quick to show what I know either. It seems to be intimidating to other people. I don't think it's a bad thing. There is a verse in the Bible about not putting your pearls before swine. That's not meant to be judgmental - simply that I'm not going to put it all out there just to be disappointed when the other person doesn't understand at all. On the other hand, I have had some wonderful discussions with people who do *get it* - so it may not be as lonely as you think.

[RegGuheert]

Thank you for the explanation. :)

 

However, I do have a slight problem with one of these things you brought up... What if somebody truly does know more than the next guy, especially if that knowledge is a result of years of thought and scholarship (formal OR informal, as self-taught people at times basically do the equivalent of a formal university formation in a field!) on a considerably higher academic level?

 

If I recall well, we're actually colleagues by one of our majors :), and while I might disagree with the way you approach literature and you might totally disagree with my pretty radical formalism in some instances... I will by default consider your opinion seriously, since it's the opinion of an expert. An expert I maybe professionally disagree with, but still, a person that has put years of serious scholarship into the same field and whose knowledge of literary theory exceeds that of your average Joe and Jane. And even if you, in some of your opinions, agree with Joe and Jane, those are still two different opinions, as the paths of getting there are different: while yours or mine is a result of serious scholarship, theirs might be merely an "aesthetical preference" or quite a randomly taken position (they aren't well-acquainted with the alternatives, the knowledge of literary theory rests on the high school level, etc.). I can take yours and Joe's position as "equals" when talking to you if and only if Joe happens to have informally studied the same field to an approximately same extent and can debate on an approximately same level. No, he doesn't have to have read the same books one by one, but if I'm to take Joe as a serious interlocutor on the highest level *I* can talk to (and this seems to be the thread about considering things on those levels), then Joe's knowledge shouldn't be considerably smaller than mine. We must be able to work with a broad shared net of associations, concepts, works read, etc. It's totally unimportant who has a piece of paper confirming him to be an expert in the field - it's the general quality and quantity of knowledge that have to meet, in order for me to talk with Joe on the highest level I can discuss things.

 

I'm not sure if I'm putting this clearly, just trying to illustrate that your disagreement with me regarding formalism, or documentary hypothesis, or Homeric question, you name it, will NOT be the same disagreement as a disagreement with somebody whose familiarity with the topic remains on high school and popular culture level. In order for us to talk as equals, we must BE equals first. The notion of extreme political corretness that the anglophone countries take part in by allowing all opinions to be considered as "equally good and important"... doesn't quite click with me.

 

Does it mean that I am going to be blatantly rude and dismiss an interested person that happens to lack scholarship, trying to "catch" them? No, but until they've got to the point where our knowledge is more or less shared, I cannot take their opinions as seriously as I take the opinions of people who know as much as I do - let alone those of the numerous people for whom I know that they know more, have studied more, have studied more in-depth and dealth with the areas I'm an amateur in on a considerably higher level.

 

(Of course, other than the breadth and depth of knowledge involved, an important note is also the lucidity and striving to think in a logical, organized fashion without committing the errors of logic and argumentation.)

 

So what I'm trying to say is... In this context we're talking about... Is it intellectual arrogance if I DO believe that one's education (formal or informal) in the field and intellect, as in a way of processing that information and presenting when talking, the way of reaching conclusions, truly do make a difference and do produce inherently different positions?

 

There's knowing what logos means because you read it an article, or heard it once by somebody... and there's knowing what it means because you can access the original text and know about its linguistic context. It's a banal example, but talks about religion are full of such examples and I happen to think that maybe... just maybe... we should be allowed not to take equally seriously an opinion based on knowing a random, decontextualized piece of knowledge - and an opinion based on a structured, contextualized study and years of scholarship behind it, even if it's technically the same position those two peple take.

 

I really, really have an issue with "it's all equal but different" and "we're all equals when we discuss". While I agree with you that each person should be treated with respect and that in an honest, good-hearted debate there is no place for contempt and cynicism towards those who know less and/or take a different stance, I truly believe that some there are "superior" and "inferior" opinions and ways of thinking (with many shades and hudes and in-between stages).

 

That being said, I also believe in a virtue of "intellect modesty" and self-constraint in certain circles... You do not always have to show what you know, especially not in a way that will hurt other people or come across as direct provoking. Which is one of the reason why I generally refrain talking about the holy trinity :D of "politics, religion and intimacy" and all of the topics derived from them, the latter in nearly all cases imaginable, and the former two in cases where I'm not absolutely sure that the people involved WANT a discussion. (i.e. not questioning other people's faiths and reasons for the sake of doing it... but if somebody comes on an online forum whose purpose is an anonymous discussion and willingly enters a discussion of the kind, then yes, it's a situation of "you explicitly show that want to discuss it, so let's".)

I feel you have failed to account for one distinct possibility: The underlying assumptions for your entire course of study may be wrong.

 

In most (all?) fields of study, there are unprovable assumptions which underpin all of the learning. In many cases, these assumptions are either not known by many of the intellectual participants in the field or are not acknowledged. But that does not change the fact that there are fundamental assumptions.

 

As such, it is possible that someone may not choose to learn your field of study because they do not accept the underlying assumptions. If they are correct in their belief, then where is the value in all of your learning? Perhaps it is all just bunk...

[TKDmom]

I will try to read through all the posts after I reply to the op, but I need to post before I can settle down and read. ;)

 

I have never been formally identified as gifted, but my dh and dd are. And in researching giftedness, I'm pretty sure that I am, too. I am LDS (Mormon).

 

In my life, my faith and intellect do not conflict (usually). Sometimes, I have to accept that I may not know everything. For instance, the whole evolution vs. creation debate. I'm comfortable with my faith that there is a God, but I recognize that evolution is the best explanation we have to describe some things. At some point, I expect that we'll have more information and that they can be reconciled. For now, I just rely on my faith without discounting the science.

 

In some areas, my education has only reinforced my faith. For instance the second law of thermodynamics states that the universe tends to disorder. How could we have this beautiful ordered universe if it wasn't for a Creator? I'm a chemist, and I know that you can't run chemical reactions without careful planning. You can't just throw a bunch of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen into a pot and hope to get proteins....

 

I know it would be impossible for me to be a member of a Christian denomination that sees the Bible as infallible. I was reading through my SL IG the other day, and John Holtzmann had this long discussion on a passage of scripture. The scripture didn't make much sense, and it was directly contradicted by another scripture that he quoted. He gave a long, convoluted, unsatisfying explanation. I wanted to shout, "It's a mistranslation!" It was so obvious to me that there had been a mistake in the translation at some point over the last 3000 years. But I know that explanation is unacceptable in some denominations.

 

As far as dealing with people at church, it can be difficult at times, but dealing with people in general can be difficult. I don't like to display my intellect--I don't want to alienate people or point out any differences between us. I was assigned to speak in church last Sunday, and it was on a topic that was difficult for me to prepare. It ended up more as a history lesson than your typical church sermon. Plenty of people told me that they enjoyed it, and learned something. But one woman told me that it was very "intellectual". The way she said it, I thought it was a backhanded compliment.

 

My mother and I joined the LDS church when I was 12. She was an engineer and a feminist. I think it was hard for her to assimilate into the LDS culture where we are told that our most important role is at home. It was very difficult for me to decide to stay at home with my children. For a long time I was torn. I felt like I was just wasting away with all these little pre-verbal people around me. I wanted to go back to school and earn my PhD (I dropped out of grad school when DD was born), so that I could prove I wasn't "just" a SAHM. Oddly enough, that conflict was resolved when I started HS'ing. I have a purpose now, and I can see that teaching my children is really the most important thing I can do. I think my life would be pretty empty without these funny little kiddos around. :)

 

I've held leadership positions among the women, but I've also taught the 2-year-old nursery children at church. I'd honestly prefer the latter at this point. I don't begrudge the men in their responsibility to hold most of leadership positions. Too much stress. I have enough responsibility within my own family already.

[Aubrey]

Aubrey, I'm really curious now. What kinds of things would you ask at church if you felt you could that you refrain from asking because of the atmosphere there? If that even makes sense...lol...

 

Let's see...I'd like to talk about communion. Why do we do it? Why do we do it the way we do it? As often as we do it? Why not Passover instead--isn't that what Jesus was talking about? But Passover being bumped from once a yr to every time we see ea other seems SO cool. And if we're supposed to do it as often as we come together, why do we only do it Sun AMs or once a quarter or whatever? Why not on play dates in ea others' homes?

 

What about Logos? What's the significance? Why do we translate it "word" when classical Gr rarely treats it that way? Couldn't there be layers of meaning there? And what about using classical Gr AND Biblical to translate the Bible? Not randomly, but comparatively? I see overlap between Greek tragedies & parables in the Bible, but I'm told essentially that I just don't understand. But theologians have only (usually) studied the Biblical side of things, so I think maybe *they* don't understand the lit side.

 

Partly, I'd like it to be ok for me to show up & just do my own thing. While you've got my kids in SS, it'd be so nice if I could just read my Bible, think about things, instead of having to sit politely thr the SS class w/ the donuts or the one down the hall where everybody's talking about Bad People (murderers they read about in the paper, etc.) instead of confessing their OWN sins.

 

I usually sit w/in earshot of the latter class, & it's all I can do (even w/ my introverted shy self) not to go in there & rip my hair out & gripe at them. But then I'd be doing what they're doing, so how productive is that, really?

 

If I could just be left alone, even that would be good. But if I'm not at church, people call & worry. If I'm at church, then I have to serve in the nursery. If I'm in the nursery, then I get asked about serving in some other aspect of the children's ministry. Because, you know, I've got kids. And they're decently behaved. So I must *like* kids & be good at that. THAT must be my gifting!!! I know, why don't you start coming 4x/wk--you can work w/ babies on Sun AM, elem kids on Wed PM, toddlers during the weekday play date, & Sun PM, you can sit in the pew & squirm as they go over Basic Doctrine 101.

 

Mostly, though, it's not questions. I wish teaching weren't just for men in the pulpit. I wish music were not the only artform w/ which we are allowed to worship. I wish church were about God instead of people's expectations, & I wish not going were a better option. I wish what I do/think mattered less or more, lol.

[Ester Maria]

Ok, but how do people know who they're talking to? I don't go around w/ my credentials taped to my forehead, kwim?

See, I'm really interested about this in a religious context.

If people don't talk about their deepest and innermost struggles and doubts out of polite consideration towards others, not willing to burden them with their doubts, etc... then truly, how DO you know whom you can and whom you cannot talk to on your level of understanding this in your own religious community?

 

I mean, what I talked about previously (I'm sorry for that hijack, went purely theoretical again and possibly quite off the specific topic), how the lack of scholarship displays, that's true once you're in a situation to see it... but this thread made me wonder - what if you're not? When do people, if they do, decide to speak up their doubts about specific points in a religion or God's existence in general? If nobody chooses to do so, being afraid of a "heretic" label or any other form of social stigma (or even mere putting doubts into others), even if a small one, then there might be tens of like-minded individuals and you never find out about it I guess. Seems quite lonely to me.

 

Speaking about gender issues... "my" religion (the one I've never practiced but counts me as a member due to my ethnicity), in its very orthodox sector, has this huge, unbearable discrepancy between male and female scholarship, that is institutionalized in separated schools which very obviously teach religious subjects on very different levels (!) and that leads to almost an a priori dismissal of what a woman says because "women don't know Hebrew" (despite Hebrew education) and "women don't learn gemara" (because of a single multi-confusing line in it that's interpreted that they shouldn't) and thus "don't really get things". That's the only case that I know of in which the dismissal in hot topics and deep questions is exclusively gender-based (partially knowledge-based, but it's circular: the knowledge usually is lesser amongst women because they were systematically taught less, and it was not incidental). I don't know how things are in very orthodox streams of other religions, but it'd be interesting to know.

[HayesW]

I am gifted. I have a very strong faith in God. I believe in the literal word of the Bible. We are very religiously conservative. I think my husband is MUCH smarter than I am. His faith puts mine to shame.

 

I see the handiwork of God all around me. I ahve no problems meshing my intellect and faith. I see amazing patterns and wonderful life and the way in which all things work and I know that it cannot be random or chaotic, but must have a guiding hand.

[TXMomof4]

I come from a family of high IQs, happy atheists and classic underachievers.

 

My thinking was that if there is a God, then nothing on earth is more important than seeking Him. I also decided early on that I couldn't let the behavior of others define Him. So, I embarked on a 20+ year and counting walk to discover who He is.

 

I'm a Christian. Christianity is the only religion that teaches that no matter how hard man works to be good, he can never be good enough to reconcile himself to God. I think history supports this...man is completely inept at prolonged, peaceful self-governance. Plus, every inclination of our hearts is toward self. Even among the best of us, there is greed and pride. It's pretty easy to measure good against each other, but can you measure good against God? We all fall short.

 

I'm non-denominational, basically non-dogmatic, continually seeking to learn more about my Creator. I believe there is much truth in any religion because they all have their roots with one God. No matter how subverted our understanding of Him, there is still one God.

 

ETA: In many ways I'm grateful for my atheistic upbringing. I was free of so much of the spiritual baggage I see carried by people who grew up in dogmatic homes and eventually fell away. Mine had to be an intellectual pursuit before it became one of the heart.

 

While I grew up in a religious home with amazing parents, the bolded part above was true also. I didn't just need to know what the bible said, I needed to know where it came from. What proof do I have that the bible is historically accurate? What proof do I have that that these things occurred and why does it matter? Why does God tell us these parts of the story?

 

There is so much valid, worldy validation for so much of the historical evidences in the bible that it reinforced for me what I wanted to believe. Then, I start looking at the spiritual proofs in the bible. We're doing a study of the tabernacle right now and it is mind blowing to me the thread that follows from Genesis to Revelation about the dwelling place of God. Man isn't smart enough to put together all of those thread across thousands of years and make it all work together. It's another proof to me of the truth from beginning to end.

 

Our 'denomination' does have gender roles for women *in worship service*. My role as a Christian is NOT defined by whether I lead singing/prayers/study on Sunday morning though. I am content that if it is important to others that Sunday morning/corporate worship be LED by men, I can follow that. I have plenty of opportunities to lead in my life outside of corporate worship times.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I see that your questions have veered away a bit from your first one of faith vs. intellect but I thought I would share my favorite modern day Christian intellectuals. (Obviously they won't necessarily be liked by others on this board or even you if you checked them out.)

 

http://www.bibleframework.com/ Charles Clough

 

http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/author-index/a/da_carson D.A. Carson

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pearcey Nancy Pearcey

 

ETA: I still enjoy reading C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer as well.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Jean in Newcastle

[Aubrey]

I have plenty of opportunities to lead in my life outside of corporate worship times.

 

While this seemed true for me in college, it seems very different now that things are so much more gender specific. And then I look back, & the people I was talking to were all guys. I'm really not talking necessarily about leadership, but discussions like this one. Sitting in dh's living room (before we were anything but friends) w/ another handful of guys (usually, there was an occasional other female) talking about the deep stuff. Not just philosophically, but personally, actively, inspiringly. As if all the faith stuff were real & mattered. As if that God man were there among us.

[TXMomof4]

While this seemed true for me in college, it seems very different now that things are so much more gender specific. And then I look back, & the people I was talking to were all guys. I'm really not talking necessarily about leadership, but discussions like this one. Sitting in dh's living room (before we were anything but friends) w/ another handful of guys (usually, there was an occasional other female) talking about the deep stuff. Not just philosophically, but personally, actively, inspiringly. As if all the faith stuff were real & mattered. As if that God man were there among us.

 

Outside of times of corporate worship services, I am every bit as vocal as the men in the group. Unless it bothered my husband, there is no reason I should not participate (and if he were the type to be bothered by it, we probably wouldn't have gotten married). I'm called to submit to my husband, not to every man everywhere.

[Joanne]

Anecdotal:

 

My DH has a peer-aged relative who is, quite literally, a rocket scientist. :D She's retired from Nasa now. Went back to school to become a Pastor. Is educated, trained and ordained and a (liberal minded) believer in Christ.

 

Next door neighbor in AZ: She was a jewish by heritage but "shut down" from spiritual paths by scary-smart husband who was a staunch atheist.

 

The most "smart" and "gifted" man I ever met lived next door to me growing up. He was an adult and lived with his mom. On a practical, everyday level, he functioned lower than "Forrest Gump". He was getting a Masters related to phenomology. I once sought his help doing a paper on "Waiting for Godot". I spent 3 hours with him and never understood a word. :lol::001_huh:

 

Personal:

 

My mom never allowed my school to pursue "gifted" on me. The most she allowed was for me to take "AP" classes in high school (rabbit trail - I'd love to talk to my mom about those choices and her thinking but I can't now). I am not "technical" or "mechanically" inclined but evidence and IQ tests indicate I'm pretty bright. That's probably why the schools when I was young wanted to test me. And probably in part why I was drinking and drugging at an early age.:lol: My *faith* and my *intellect* do not collide. However, as most of you reading know, the specifics of religion and my intellict collide often.

[Ester Maria]

I feel you have failed to account for one distinct possibility: The underlying assumptions for your entire course of study may be wrong.

 

In most (all?) fields of study, there are unprovable assumptions which underpin all of the learning. In many cases, these assumptions are either not known by many of the intellectual participants in the field or are not acknowledged. But that does not change the fact that there are fundamental assumptions.

 

As such, it is possible that someone may not choose to learn your field of study because they do not accept the underlying assumptions. If they are correct in their belief, then where is the value in all of your learning? Perhaps it is all just bunk...

I hate when this happens: when somebody opens a truly interesting question for which I know that it gets out of the format of the forum. :D I'll try to be short and, of course, I'll fail at that.

 

The post you quoted actually talked specifically about the case in which two people are debating a topic they are both interested in, have studied and find to be relevant to their lives... but there is an obvious discrepancy of, shall we call it, "credentials" when thinking so.

 

The axiomatic nature of things, on the other hand, is something I shortly addressed in my first post on this thread. And yes, if we're going to really push it - it's ALL axiomatic.

The claim that the world exists is an axiomatic claim. You cannot prove it other than by that world you are trying to prove and then we get into Descartes and Putnam and the rest of the crew to see that solipsism is a very tricky stance, philosophically, as you cannot really disprove it. It's like a cul-de-sac, once you accept it as your standpoint from which you talk about the world or, better, what you consider to be an illusion of everything.

 

If we take only that into account, without even getting mathematical, yes, ALL of science is fundamentally axiomatic, as well as each and every branch of specific sciences, since they rely on other axiomatic sciences and their axiomatic claims.

One cannot construct a worldview without axioms. It's like attempting to be ideology-free: you will NEVER be. Even the "free of all -isms" is an inherently ideological stance. No such thing as ideology-free upbringing or education, no such thing as a branch of knowledge that's not based on axioms.

 

Axioms often get problematic. Take a very basic example, Euclidean geometry will not even persist in the high school context, since you'll inevitably learn of Lobachevsky, geometry of curved space, etc. There are whole branches of modern mathematics that are unbelieveably contradictory and crash with the initial axioms of all mathematics (some infinities are larger than the other ones?! as absurd as you can get!), and even if you go "applied", much of the modern sciences have problems exactly with underlying principles.

 

I fully agree with you, RegGuheert, if that's what you implied: YES, ON THE LEVEL HIGH ENOUGH, science is as axiomatic as is religion, as an explanatory model of the world. So why not dismiss it, out of belief only - because you take a different axiomatic system with different hypotheses and you believe all of its course of study to be ultimately flawed (as they don't operate with the God hypothesis)? (And please keep in mind, what we're talking about here isn't exactly "popular form" of religion; those are, precisely, the exceptions I was referring to in my first post - people who take things to that level theologically AND scientifically.)

 

I'm still of an opinion that we do not have the freedom of that random adherence to what we consider true, if nothing else, than out of pure pragmatism. My husband synthesizes drugs that WORK (unless the whole world is an illusion, of course), even if they rely on scientific theories which are, at the end of the day, pretty axiomatic. And that's the only thing I have to say to people in outright denial of scientific method and science as a valuable explanatory system (not saying it's you, you just provoked a question :), just speaking theoretically) - be consistent with your own mindset. If you refuse science because of its axiomatic nature and believe its entire course of study is inherently flawed right on the level of initial hypotheses, then you certainly don't want medicines that are BASED on the theories you don't approve of. If you are correct in their belief... Right? ;)

 

That's one of the things that irk me in the whole religion vs. science issue, that might not be the topic of this very thread, but that I see so often. I have met some people who are quite extreme in that aspect, allegedly rejecting science as an explanatory system completely (with scientific method and all, they consider it a fundamentally flawed course of study and thus reject its conclusions as they don't come from the same premises as their worldview), and in fact boast with that fact... and then normally profit from that science's achievements in their daily lives. But I've gone off topic. :)

 

Yes, I see what you're saying about underlying assumptions. But even if we don't go as far to refute whole fields of human knowledge as essentially flawed, let's say we study the same one - my knowledge of Greek and Hebrew won't become any less relevant in a discussion because I studied them without a belief that the Biblical text is true, kwim? It still won't take away from the fact that I have the tool to access it. I can also read tons of religious literature with completely different point of view than you... and it won't take away from the fact I WILL know the arguments used and WILL operate with the same net of associations when we talk. My lack of belief will be completely secondary in a theological discussion, actually, if I have the tools and concrete information to operate with.

[MamaSheep]

Honestly, I see no reason why a gifted mother choosing to stay at home and educate her children should be any less than a woman out in the working world being seen for her work. I choose not to run marathons, because my marathon includes taking care of my family. I don't even care to take classes or "be successful" in other ways. Being here at home is *it* for me.

 

And to answer one of the OP's original questions:

My involvement in the church may not be seen by a lot of people. I devote myself to graphic design, publishing, and editing work. I also spend a lot of one-on-one time mentoring other women, teaching them what the Bible really says and means *in the real world* of mothering and working and being a wife. So if you came to my church, its likely that you wouldn't see me as a worker/leader there. But I am, and I know that the work I do is important as well as appreciated.

I'm not always quick to show what I know either. It seems to be intimidating to other people. I don't think it's a bad thing. There is a verse in the Bible about not putting your pearls before swine. That's not meant to be judgmental - simply that I'm not going to put it all out there just to be disappointed when the other person doesn't understand at all. On the other hand, I have had some wonderful discussions with people who do *get it* - so it may not be as lonely as you think.

 

Hmm...I think I'm being unclear again. I seem to be doing that a lot today, maybe I need to go back to bed for a while. My marathon running friends that I was referring to aren't doing it because they want to be seen for their work or viewed as "successful". It's something they do because they enjoy the physicality and the personal challenge. But running marathons was just an example. I'm not a marathon runner either. My talents and joys lie in other areas. I'm not talking about doing something so other people will admire your hard work, or so that you can feel "successful", or so people can judge your value by your paycheck. I'm just talking about doing things that are an expression of that particular woman as an individual--an exploration of her God-given gifts and talents and personal growth. Marathons were an example, but graphic design is another good example. Or fine art, or inventing gadgets, or needlework, or reading theology, or mentoring other women, or whatever. I sometimes encounter people who feel it's morally "wrong" for women to engage in these kinds of pursuits because they feel that mothering and being a wife leave no room for ANY outside interests and personal pursuits. Anything not directly related to caring for the husband, the children, and the home is seen by these folks as frivilous, or even sinful. This is what I don't understand. I completely agree with you that a woman who chooses to stay at home and educate her children should not be seen as "less" in any way than a woman in the workforce. I fully believe that home is where the real world rubber meets the road and I see value I can't even find words to express in being deeply present in the home and giving that a critical level of priority in one's life. I don't think, though, that a woman who is DOING that should be made to feel "less than" if she finds time to explore graphic design, or marathon running, or whatever in addition. That's all I was saying.

[Laurie4b]

I attend a church in an area that is itself an intellectual crossroads with 3 major universities (two very selective) within driving distance. Our church has a high number of professors from those major universities, not to mention grad students, etc. I assume a number of them would qualify as truly in the gifted range. We are a nondenominational, evangelical church. One specific example is a grad student in biology who was here and I would not be surprised if he ends up with a Nobel prize. He converted out of an atheist family to evangelical Christianity. Additionally, a gentlemen who double dips in our church and a local Methodist Church is probably at the upper tip of the tiny part of the normal curve in terms of gifted. One other I can think of converted from evangelical faith (attended a Presbyterian Church) to Catholocism because he struggled so much over how we know what we know in the faith. It is a place of peace to him to be able to say that he trusts that God worked through the Catholic Church over the centuries to preserve truth. It allowed him to let go of a lot of his intellectual arguments and counterarguments (within himself mostly.) Those three are probably at the very top of folks I've known, but in this geographical area, because there are a high number of gifted individuals (your waiter is likely to have a PhD or be working on it), it's pretty clear that gifted doesn't fit with one type of faith community; they are spread out like the rest of us common folk are, LOL! I don't really size up most of the people I meet; those 3 just stand out because they would anywhere.

 

Our church started as a church willing to ask hard questions. NO questions are off-limit. Our founding pastor positively revelled in hard questions. Though he is no longer the pastor, that culture is still part of our church.

 

I see you also want to know about leadership: of the three specific examples I gave, only the biologist has held a position of leadership. His was in children's then in youth ministry. Some professors in our church have also held positions of leadership, but intellectual prowress and leadership are not necessarily related.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Laurie4b

[RegGuheert]

I hate when this happens: when somebody opens a truly interesting question for which I know that it gets out of the format of the forum. :D I'll try to be short and, of course, I'll fail at that.

Yes, my apologies to OP. But I think we are wrapping up, here! :tongue_smilie:

The post you quoted actually talked specifically about the case in which two people are debating a topic they are both interested in, have studied and find to be relevant to their lives... but there is an obvious discrepancy of, shall we call it, "credentials" when thinking so.

You did, but even at that, I would say there is still a possibility that both "experts" are discussing illusion. Not a big deal if they share it! ;)

I fully agree with you, RegGuheert, if that's what you implied: YES, ON THE LEVEL HIGH ENOUGH, science is as axiomatic as is religion, as an explanatory model of the world. So why not dismiss it, out of belief only - because you take a different axiomatic system with different hypotheses and you believe all of its course of study to be ultimately flawed (as they don't operate with the God hypothesis)? (And please keep in mind, what we're talking about here isn't exactly "popular form" of religion; those are, precisely, the exceptions I was referring to in my first post - people who take things to that level theologically AND scientifically.)

 

I'm still of an opinion that we do not have the freedom of that random adherence to what we consider true, if nothing else, than out of pure pragmatism. My husband synthesizes drugs that WORK (unless the whole world is an illusion, of course), even if they rely on scientific theories which are, at the end of the day, pretty axiomatic. And that's the only thing I have to say to people in outright denial of scientific method and science as a valuable explanatory system (not saying it's you, you just provoked a question :), just speaking theoretically) - be consistent with your own mindset. If you refuse science because of its axiomatic nature and believe its entire course of study is inherently flawed right on the level of initial hypotheses, then you certainly don't want medicines that are BASED on the theories you don't approve of. If you are correct in their belief... Right? ;)

I also work in a scientific field and I agree that science works well in my field, also. For operational science, I find that both the "There is a God" and "There is NO God" assumptions work pretty well. The prior was widely practiced until about 150 years ago while the latter has been more widely practiced since then.

 

It is in the field of forensic science in which the discussion leads to origins of the universe and/or life that our assumptions come to the forefront.

Yes, I see what you're saying about underlying assumptions. But even if we don't go as far to refute whole fields of human knowledge as essentially flawed, let's say we study the same one - my knowledge of Greek and Hebrew won't become any less relevant in a discussion because I studied them without a belief that the Biblical text is true, kwim? It still won't take away from the fact that I have the tool to access it. I can also read tons of religious literature with completely different point of view than you... and it won't take away from the fact I WILL know the arguments used and WILL operate with the same net of associations when we talk. My lack of belief will be completely secondary in a theological discussion, actually, if I have the tools and concrete information to operate with.

I'm with you here. Still, there is some humility that comes from the reality that our fundamental beliefs are not provable. That was my main point. It takes some of the edge off of our intellectual arrogance when we realize that. Edited August 10, 2010 by RegGuheert
Fixed quoted text.

[MamaSheep]

Let's see...I'd like to talk about communion. Why do we do it? Why do we do it the way we do it? As often as we do it? Why not Passover instead--isn't that what Jesus was talking about? But Passover being bumped from once a yr to every time we see ea other seems SO cool. And if we're supposed to do it as often as we come together, why do we only do it Sun AMs or once a quarter or whatever? Why not on play dates in ea others' homes?

 

What about Logos? What's the significance? Why do we translate it "word" when classical Gr rarely treats it that way? Couldn't there be layers of meaning there? And what about using classical Gr AND Biblical to translate the Bible? Not randomly, but comparatively? I see overlap between Greek tragedies & parables in the Bible, but I'm told essentially that I just don't understand. But theologians have only (usually) studied the Biblical side of things, so I think maybe *they* don't understand the lit side.

 

Partly, I'd like it to be ok for me to show up & just do my own thing. While you've got my kids in SS, it'd be so nice if I could just read my Bible, think about things, instead of having to sit politely thr the SS class w/ the donuts or the one down the hall where everybody's talking about Bad People (murderers they read about in the paper, etc.) instead of confessing their OWN sins.

 

I usually sit w/in earshot of the latter class, & it's all I can do (even w/ my introverted shy self) not to go in there & rip my hair out & gripe at them. But then I'd be doing what they're doing, so how productive is that, really?

 

If I could just be left alone, even that would be good. But if I'm not at church, people call & worry. If I'm at church, then I have to serve in the nursery. If I'm in the nursery, then I get asked about serving in some other aspect of the children's ministry. Because, you know, I've got kids. And they're decently behaved. So I must *like* kids & be good at that. THAT must be my gifting!!! I know, why don't you start coming 4x/wk--you can work w/ babies on Sun AM, elem kids on Wed PM, toddlers during the weekday play date, & Sun PM, you can sit in the pew & squirm as they go over Basic Doctrine 101.

 

Mostly, though, it's not questions. I wish teaching weren't just for men in the pulpit. I wish music were not the only artform w/ which we are allowed to worship. I wish church were about God instead of people's expectations, & I wish not going were a better option. I wish what I do/think mattered less or more, lol.

 

I think you should come over for dinner sometime. I love conversations like that. Also, FWIW I don't think I would enjoy your church much either, as you describe it. It sounds a bit off track to me. But then I'm a Mormon, and as such I can almost guarantee your church would see ME as the one who's off track...lol.

[tofuscramble]

DH has a very high IQ and he is Atheist (we dont know the exact number but he was invited to join Mensa as a child). DH's best friend has an IQ of 160 and is Muslim.

[Aubrey]

See, I'm really interested about this in a religious context.

If people don't talk about their deepest and innermost struggles and doubts out of polite consideration towards others, not willing to burden them with their doubts, etc... then truly, how DO you know whom you can and whom you cannot talk to on your level of understanding this in your own religious community?

 

Well...I'm not really talking about doubts, but even in that realm, I've been raised in more of a band-aid denomination than a wholistic search-out-the-root-of-the-problem kind of place. So slap a Scripture or some prayer on your doubts, a smile on your face, & "fake it till you make it."

 

I mean, what I talked about previously (I'm sorry for that hijack, went purely theoretical again and possibly quite off the specific topic), how the lack of scholarship displays, that's true once you're in a situation to see it... but this thread made me wonder - what if you're not? When do people, if they do, decide to speak up their doubts about specific points in a religion or God's existence in general? If nobody chooses to do so, being afraid of a "heretic" label or any other form of social stigma (or even mere putting doubts into others), even if a small one, then there might be tens of like-minded individuals and you never find out about it I guess. Seems quite lonely to me.

 

Another issue is what counts as "credentials." My yp had a 2yr cert from a non-accredited Bible school & didn't know anything. But I was a 13 & 14yo kid, so I didn't *have* any credentials, kwim? There are guys getting seminary degrees here who, respectfully, are hot air balloons.

 

I could say that I've been a Christian all my life, but that doesn't always mean anything. I could say that I've been taken several yrs worth of Bible classes, but they were from the same school that my yp attended. I could say that I took a little Hebrew & taught myself a little Greek, but at that point, it seems to be nothing more than...well, a contest. And I'd sound completely obnoxious. And I'd sound like I put a lot of stock in that "stuff." Before I had any "stuff," I was spending summers locked in my room w/ several translations of the Bible & Strong's concordance. People w/ "stuff" don't always know much.

 

Speaking about gender issues... "my" religion (the one I've never practiced but counts me as a member due to my ethnicity), in its very orthodox sector, has this huge, unbearable discrepancy between male and female scholarship, that is institutionalized in separated schools which very obviously teach religious subjects on very different levels (!) and that leads to almost an a priori dismissal of what a woman says because "women don't know Hebrew" (despite Hebrew education) and "women don't learn gemara" (because of a single multi-confusing line in it that's interpreted that they shouldn't) and thus "don't really get things". That's the only case that I know of in which the dismissal in hot topics and deep questions is exclusively gender-based (partially knowledge-based, but it's circular: the knowledge usually is lesser amongst women because they were systematically taught less, and it was not incidental). I don't know how things are in very orthodox streams of other religions, but it'd be interesting to know.

 

I have read a little bit about the historical position of Jewish women w/in the faith, but I don't know about the present interpretation. How frustrating!

[Food4Thought]

I sometimes encounter people who feel it's morally "wrong" for women to engage in these kinds of pursuits because they feel that mothering and being a wife leave no room for ANY outside interests and personal pursuits. Anything not directly related to caring for the husband, the children, and the home is seen by these folks as frivilous, or even sinful. This is what I don't understand.

 

Sorry I misunderstood you. You're right - this is the part that is hard to understand. And in a way, I suppose I'm blessed that I *can* do the things I'm good at (graphic design, writing). I forget that not everyone is "allowed" to do those things. And you're right, there really can be a judgment of those things coming from the church.

[Aubrey]

I think you should come over for dinner sometime. I love conversations like that. Also, FWIW I don't think I would enjoy your church much either, as you describe it. It sounds a bit off track to me. But then I'm a Mormon, and as such I can almost guarantee your church would see ME as the one who's off track...lol.

 

Sounds good to me! My church is ok. Some parts are great, some parts not. It's better than most churches I've attended. It's really me who doesn't fit them, not the other way around. I'm the leftover puzzle piece that gets stuck in the wrong box & mucks the whole process up. :lol: I can't help it, though.

[MamaSheep]

Sorry I misunderstood you. You're right - this is the part that is hard to understand. And in a way, I suppose I'm blessed that I *can* do the things I'm good at (graphic design, writing). I forget that not everyone is "allowed" to do those things. And you're right, there really can be a judgment of those things coming from the church.

 

Well...from some churches. And probably from some individual people in most churches, even if it's not what their church actually teaches. I've seen a lot more of it since I started homeschooling and rubbing elbows with more women who seem to be in situations like that. I just don't get it. It gets my hackles up a bit. But it also helps me better understand the negative attitudes about homemaking that I've encountered in some other women. If that is what they think it's like, no wonder they're opposed.

 

Sounds good to me! My church is ok. Some parts are great, some parts not. It's better than most churches I've attended. It's really me who doesn't fit them, not the other way around. I'm the leftover puzzle piece that gets stuck in the wrong box & mucks the whole process up. :lol: I can't help it, though.

 

Lol...I suppose that means there's another puzzle box out there searching for its Aubrey because without her it's just not complete. :D

 

I wish I had more time for the forum today. I have to go sort old papers and wipe out the workbox drawers...sigh....I'd better get back to it.

[Food4Thought]

Let's see...I'd like to talk about communion. Why do we do it? Why do we do it the way we do it? As often as we do it? Why not Passover instead--isn't that what Jesus was talking about? But Passover being bumped from once a yr to every time we see ea other seems SO cool. And if we're supposed to do it as often as we come together, why do we only do it Sun AMs or once a quarter or whatever? Why not on play dates in ea others' homes?

 

What about Logos? What's the significance? Why do we translate it "word" when classical Gr rarely treats it that way? Couldn't there be layers of meaning there? And what about using classical Gr AND Biblical to translate the Bible? Not randomly, but comparatively? I see overlap between Greek tragedies & parables in the Bible, but I'm told essentially that I just don't understand. But theologians have only (usually) studied the Biblical side of things, so I think maybe *they* don't understand the lit side.

 

Partly, I'd like it to be ok for me to show up & just do my own thing. While you've got my kids in SS, it'd be so nice if I could just read my Bible, think about things, instead of having to sit politely thr the SS class w/ the donuts or the one down the hall where everybody's talking about Bad People (murderers they read about in the paper, etc.) instead of confessing their OWN sins.

 

I usually sit w/in earshot of the latter class, & it's all I can do (even w/ my introverted shy self) not to go in there & rip my hair out & gripe at them. But then I'd be doing what they're doing, so how productive is that, really?

 

If I could just be left alone, even that would be good. But if I'm not at church, people call & worry. If I'm at church, then I have to serve in the nursery. If I'm in the nursery, then I get asked about serving in some other aspect of the children's ministry. Because, you know, I've got kids. And they're decently behaved. So I must *like* kids & be good at that. THAT must be my gifting!!! I know, why don't you start coming 4x/wk--you can work w/ babies on Sun AM, elem kids on Wed PM, toddlers during the weekday play date, & Sun PM, you can sit in the pew & squirm as they go over Basic Doctrine 101.

 

Mostly, though, it's not questions. I wish teaching weren't just for men in the pulpit. I wish music were not the only artform w/ which we are allowed to worship. I wish church were about God instead of people's expectations, & I wish not going were a better option. I wish what I do/think mattered less or more, lol.

 

You and I would get along quite well, I think. :D I have many of the same questions and conversations with my DH (who is a pastor).

 

I'll tell you how I've solved some of those issues that I have in common with you. I told the nursery director and children's ministry person that I was no longer able to serve with children's ministries. I said a big resounding NO, and then I continued to say it over and over until they stopped asking. I love my kids, but kids ministry is definitely not my thing. Don't let them make you feel guilty about not doing it. God has obviously gifted you differently, and you need to find out what HE wants from you during those times. Maybe you need to start an Art ministry. Maybe you should do a real Passover Seder next year to educate people about the origins of the Lord's Supper. There are LOTS of ways to serve. Don't get stuck!

 

During Sunday School, I go sit in the church library where it is quiet. If someone comes in, I pretend to be praying. I read my Bible. I used to get comments from people wondering if I was "going to class" and I'd just say, "I need some time to pray today." No one can give you a hard time about praying! It's like homeschooling - if the right thing for you is outside the norm, you just do it until people get used to that being your norm.

 

The hardest part might be realizing that you understand God and his Word much differently than other people. For me, it's hard not to let that become a source of judgment against others who can only get to that top level of understanding and may never progress further than that. That doesn't stop me from getting together with them, and it doesn't always stop me from holding my tongue. But do not let other people's expectations get in the way of your relationship with God. (I tell myself that at least once a day - it's hard being a weirdo and a pastor's wife.)

[Melinda in VT]

Let's see...I'd like to talk about communion. Why do we do it? Why do we do it the way we do it? As often as we do it? Why not Passover instead--isn't that what Jesus was talking about? But Passover being bumped from once a yr to every time we see ea other seems SO cool. And if we're supposed to do it as often as we come together, why do we only do it Sun AMs or once a quarter or whatever? Why not on play dates in ea others' homes?

 

Maybe you should start a new thread, because I think this would be an interesting topic to discuss.:D

 

During Lent this year, I read volume 1 of Meier's A Marginal Jew, and I think he makes a compelling case for the Last Supper not being a Passover meal. He had several reasons, but the one I remember at the moment is that the tradition of releasing a prisoner (i.e., Barabas) at Passover was so that he could eat the first Passover meal with his family. It doesn't make much sense if you release him the next day.

 

Years ago, when I left my original denomination and entered mainline Christendom, I was shocked (but then happy) to find that Communion was served during the final session of our small Lenten study group. Partaking in a more intimate setting like that put it in a different light. It was the first time I'd had Communion outside of the large corporate Sunday worship.

 

On the other hand, one thing I don't like about my current church is that we only have Communion once a month. :glare:

 

As for play dates, can you do that? I grew up thinking only men could administer it. That barrier is gone, but I guess I've assumed that only a minister or official church representative could do it. Off to think . . .