perhaps we can agree that general intelligence is either rooted in or results in skepticism (leaving the chicken and egg question to the reader..). we learn by questioning. memorization gives us knowledge, but not intelligence.

for a long time, i was confused as to how very smart people i knew could be religious or racist or homophobic, how they could simply take something for granted, rather than reserving judgement for a time when there was more evidence at their disposal. some time has passed since then and i've had the oppotunity to meet people who prove that intelligence does not destroy religion or political fanaticism, or any of the other things i assumed to characterize stupidity. rather, with such people, it seems only that skepticism (and faith) plays a different role in their lives than in my own.

i've come to the tentative conclusion that intelligent people could be somewhat effectively divided into two groups: those who question everything and are satisfied with a minimal amount of empirical evidence, and those who thoroughly question only a few things, and are almost insatiable in their pursit of evidence about those things. geeks, as a culture, have been called obsessive. this seems to be true, and leaves little time for other pursuits. in areas that don't directly impact the object of one's obsession, it is often easier to accept the easiest believable answer and consider the issue closed. it could be that people inclined to question absolutely everything are less effective in their accomplishments, but more accomplished in their understanding.

religion is a matter wholly unique, in my mind. i was raised to believe that anyone who was religious was by definition an idiot, undeserving even of contempt - dangerous, mindless, and inferior. i'm not intolerant enough to hang onto that assumption, but for a long time being religious and being (at least scientifically) intelligent were mutually exclusive in my mind. but it's become apparent to me that people who are what i'd call truly religious don't need any proof, that faith, to those who have it, is something felt and not a conclusion made based on one's environment. that's it's possible to view a religious doctrine not as absolute truth, but as a set of parables meant to illustrate basic tenets of a religion. thus, between religion and science, there need be no conflict, and people who agree with me there are those whom i respect.

i still have trouble dealing with people who are close-minded about the things they believe and disdain those who disagree or who the dogma of a religious or political ideaology tells them they ought to. but hate takes a lot of effort, and it's simpler to find something good in a person and focus on that. otherwise, really, i'm no better than they are.