Religious People are Not Stupid

[Truly Enlightened]

We all know that donkeys and snakes don't literally speak to humans. We all know that dead people don't revisit their loved ones, or return to work after their own funeral. We all know that the physical laws in nature can't be dismissed, suspended, or ignored. We all know that even the most complicated ideas, lifeforms, natural or man-made creations, are all rooted in some simpler form. So, why is it that perfectly intelligent humans can believe in ghost, angels, demons, a flat earth, intelligent design, original sin, heaven and hell, or the existence of the supernatural? I guess the simplest answer is, "..that's just how humans are". Humans unfortunately, are just not entirely rational creatures, including the most intelligent and educated among us. Sometimes our rational understandings are replaced by superstition, subjectivity, confirmation and cognitive bias. Science is aware of how our emotions, experiences, prejudice, and personal interest, can affect our ability to critically think. Hence, the need for the scientific method of inquiry to avoid these problems. So why do people succumb? Is it a "response bias(gullible)", or a defective änterior cingulate cortex(B.S. detector)"?

I believe that intelligence is compartmentalized, or partitioned as a normal function of our brain. This allows for even the greatest minds to be totally inept in the intricacies of social interactions. These minds may use the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art tools of their field, but may get their theories for an unrelated field, from places like the Institute for Creation Research. Which have stopped putting out new theories since the late Bronze Age. We should also never give a person who is distinguished in one field of research, the same level of authority in another field that they don't deserve("halo effect").

I believe that even the most intelligent person will believe in any nonsense if you start young enough. An argument could be made that human reasoning only serves to rationalize and validate the emotional content that is already in place in their psyche from their earliest years. In other words, "We think in order to rationalize what we already believe". Our knowledge base and critical thinking skills would, at best, only circumvent this early belief structure, and not challedge it. It is very difficult to challenge our inner core beliefs, that were in place before our critical thinking skills were ever developed.

I also believe that the religious notion of sin and human brokenness, only instills the idea that we must distrust ourselves. We are taught indirectly, even before we could read of write, that human reasoning cannot be trusted. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure" (Jeremiah 17:9). "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts"(Isaiah 55:9). There are many, many other similar quotes. We even learn from an early age that whenever our powers of logic and reasoning conflict with the teachings of the Bible, God must always trump human logic and reasoning. Since it would be impossible to disagree with the word of God.

Finally, I believe that it is the social pressures to remain faithful that keeps people from freely embracing their own cognitive dissonance. The social need to belong to or identify with a group, is a very powerful security blanket. Many would prefer death to excommunication or exclusion. When your entire life is built around any idea, challenging that idea might threaten the core belief of who you are, both psychologically and socially. For some, it may even threaten their entire world.

No, religious people are not stupid. They are just human.

 

[Spiderman]

I think the Bible is quite stupid in many ways, but that doesn't mean we all know the things you said are false.

You can't prove that it is.

So, you are giving opinions rather than facts.

You don't know that it is all false. That is a fact!

 

[Audie]

We all know that donkeys and snakes don't literally speak to humans. We all know that dead people don't revisit their loved ones, or return to work after their own funeral. We all know that the physical laws in nature can't be dismissed, suspended, or ignored. We all know that even the most complicated ideas, lifeforms, natural or man-made creations, are all rooted in some simpler form. So, why is it that perfectly intelligent humans can believe in ghost, angels, demons, a flat earth, intelligent design, original sin, heaven and hell, or the existence of the supernatural? I guess the simplest answer is, "..that's just how humans are". Humans unfortunately, are just not entirely rational creatures, including the most intelligent and educated among us. Sometimes our rational understandings are replaced by superstition, subjectivity, confirmation and cognitive bias. Science is aware of how our emotions, experiences, prejudice, and personal interest, can affect our ability to critically think. Hence, the need for the scientific method of inquiry to avoid these problems. So why do people succumb? Is it a "response bias(gullible)", or a defective änterior cingulate cortex(B.S. detector)"?

I believe that intelligence is compartmentalized, or partitioned as a normal function of our brain. This allows for even the greatest minds to be totally inept in the intricacies of social interactions. These minds may use the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art tools of their field, but may get their theories for an unrelated field, from places like the Institute for Creation Research. Which have stopped putting out new theories since the late Bronze Age. We should also never give a person who is distinguished in one field of research, the same level of authority in another field that they don't deserve("halo effect").

I believe that even the most intelligent person will believe in any nonsense if you start young enough. An argument could be made that human reasoning only serves to rationalize and validate the emotional content that is already in place in their psyche from their earliest years. In other words, "We think in order to rationalize what we already believe". Our knowledge base and critical thinking skills would, at best, only circumvent this early belief structure, and not challedge it. It is very difficult to challenge our inner core beliefs, that were in place before our critical thinking skills were ever developed.

I also believe that the religious notion of sin and human brokenness, only instills the idea that we must distrust ourselves. We are taught indirectly, even before we could read of write, that human reasoning cannot be trusted. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure" (Jeremiah 17:9). "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts"(Isaiah 55:9). There are many, many other similar quotes. We even learn from an early age that whenever our powers of logic and reasoning conflict with the teachings of the Bible, God must always trump human logic and reasoning. Since it would be impossible to disagree with the word of God.

Finally, I believe that it is the social pressures to remain faithful that keeps people from freely embracing their own cognitive dissonance. The social need to belong to or identify with a group, is a very powerful security blanket. Many would prefer death to excommunication or exclusion. When your entire life is built around any idea, challenging that idea might threaten the core belief of who you are, both psychologically and socially. For some, it may even threaten their entire world.

No, religious people are not stupid. They are just human.

Terrif, a treatise expounding mightily on
new of the obvious.

 

[Revoltingest]

We all know that donkeys and snakes don't literally speak to humans. We all know that dead people don't revisit their loved ones, or return to work after their own funeral. We all know that the physical laws in nature can't be dismissed, suspended, or ignored. We all know that even the most complicated ideas, lifeforms, natural or man-made creations, are all rooted in some simpler form. So, why is it that perfectly intelligent humans can believe in ghost, angels, demons, a flat earth, intelligent design, original sin, heaven and hell, or the existence of the supernatural? I guess the simplest answer is, "..that's just how humans are". Humans unfortunately, are just not entirely rational creatures, including the most intelligent and educated among us. Sometimes our rational understandings are replaced by superstition, subjectivity, confirmation and cognitive bias. Science is aware of how our emotions, experiences, prejudice, and personal interest, can affect our ability to critically think. Hence, the need for the scientific method of inquiry to avoid these problems. So why do people succumb? Is it a "response bias(gullible)", or a defective änterior cingulate cortex(B.S. detector)"?

I believe that intelligence is compartmentalized, or partitioned as a normal function of our brain. This allows for even the greatest minds to be totally inept in the intricacies of social interactions. These minds may use the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art tools of their field, but may get their theories for an unrelated field, from places like the Institute for Creation Research. Which have stopped putting out new theories since the late Bronze Age. We should also never give a person who is distinguished in one field of research, the same level of authority in another field that they don't deserve("halo effect").

I believe that even the most intelligent person will believe in any nonsense if you start young enough. An argument could be made that human reasoning only serves to rationalize and validate the emotional content that is already in place in their psyche from their earliest years. In other words, "We think in order to rationalize what we already believe". Our knowledge base and critical thinking skills would, at best, only circumvent this early belief structure, and not challedge it. It is very difficult to challenge our inner core beliefs, that were in place before our critical thinking skills were ever developed.

I also believe that the religious notion of sin and human brokenness, only instills the idea that we must distrust ourselves. We are taught indirectly, even before we could read of write, that human reasoning cannot be trusted. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure" (Jeremiah 17:9). "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts"(Isaiah 55:9). There are many, many other similar quotes. We even learn from an early age that whenever our powers of logic and reasoning conflict with the teachings of the Bible, God must always trump human logic and reasoning. Since it would be impossible to disagree with the word of God.

Finally, I believe that it is the social pressures to remain faithful that keeps people from freely embracing their own cognitive dissonance. The social need to belong to or identify with a group, is a very powerful security blanket. Many would prefer death to excommunication or exclusion. When your entire life is built around any idea, challenging that idea might threaten the core belief of who you are, both psychologically and socially. For some, it may even threaten their entire world.

No, religious people are not stupid. They are just human.

No argument here.
Ya gotta give us something to argue over...to rail against...to inspire us to call you names.

 

[Audie]

No argument here.
Ya gotta give us something to argue over...to rail against...to inspire us to call you names.

It may be that he really thinks he is onto
something, and us less enlightened folks
just dont get it. We even need bold font
so we will get the sa·li·ent ˈsālyənt
points!

As if.

 

[PureX]

We all know that donkeys and snakes don't literally speak to humans. We all know that dead people don't revisit their loved ones, or return to work after their own funeral. We all know that the physical laws in nature can't be dismissed, suspended, or ignored. We all know that even the most complicated ideas, lifeforms, natural or man-made creations, are all rooted in some simpler form. So, why is it that perfectly intelligent humans can believe in ghost, angels, demons, a flat earth, intelligent design, original sin, heaven and hell, or the existence of the supernatural?

First of all, we humans don't "know" any of the things you claim we know. We assume them to be so from our very limited personal experiences, and through our very limited cognitive grasp of existential reality. And those of us who are able to recognize these profound limitations also must cede the notion that there are many possible and exceptional phenomena extant in the universe that we do not know of.

Secondly, most of the people who read those religious stories about talking snakes and so on understand that they are mythical, symbolic, and metaphorical mechanisms for conveying otherwise difficult, complex, metaphysical ideals. All literature, not just religious literature, is replete with similar literary mechanisms with similar literary intentions even though the ideals being conveyed may be of a different intellectual category.

Lastly, the relative level of intelligence among humans follows what is called a "Bell Curve". That means that a few people are very intelligent, more are notably intelligent, most are of average intelligence, some are notably unintelligent, and a few are very unintelligent. So that it is inevitable that half of us will fall on the lesser side of the intelligence curve, and half on the more. However, it's not true that half of us believe those stories are a literally accurate representation of historical events. In fact, only a small percentage of humans are that naive.

So I think the more important question to you would be; why are you focussing on that small percentage, and playing them up in your mind to be so much greater in number than they are? And why aren't YOU recognizing these literary mechanisms for what they are, and thereby interpreting those ancient religious stories for their complex ideological content, as opposed to their misunderstood historical inaccuracies?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

No argument here.
Ya gotta give us something to argue over...to rail against...to inspire us to call you names.

Just returned from a cruise. Haven't settled in yet.

 

[Revoltingest]

It may be that he really thinks he is onto
something, and us less enlightened folks
just dont get it. We even need bold font
so we will get the sa·li·ent ˈsālyənt
points!

As if.

Sometimes what's obvious to some of us must be said for the benefit for less enlightened folk.
Although the embolgenizing phrases should be used sparingly.

 

[Audie]

Sometimes what's obvious to some of us must be said for the benefit for less enlightened folk.
Although the embolgenizing phrases should be used sparingly.

(emphasis added)

 

[Audie]

Just returned from a cruise. Haven't settled in yet.

I think a lifeboat with you, purex and RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha
would make for a movie.

Or at least one of those "a this, a that and this other all
walked into a bar..." jokes.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think a lifeboat with you, purex and RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha
would make for a movie.

A slasher movie?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We all know that donkeys and snakes don't literally speak to humans. We all know that dead people don't revisit their loved ones, or return to work after their own funeral. We all know that the physical laws in nature can't be dismissed, suspended, or ignored. We all know that even the most complicated ideas, lifeforms, natural or man-made creations, are all rooted in some simpler form. So, why is it that perfectly intelligent humans can believe in ghost, angels, demons, a flat earth, intelligent design, original sin, heaven and hell, or the existence of the supernatural? I guess the simplest answer is, "..that's just how humans are". Humans unfortunately, are just not entirely rational creatures, including the most intelligent and educated among us. Sometimes our rational understandings are replaced by superstition, subjectivity, confirmation and cognitive bias. Science is aware of how our emotions, experiences, prejudice, and personal interest, can affect our ability to critically think. Hence, the need for the scientific method of inquiry to avoid these problems. So why do people succumb? Is it a "response bias(gullible)", or a defective änterior cingulate cortex(B.S. detector)"?

I believe that intelligence is compartmentalized, or partitioned as a normal function of our brain. This allows for even the greatest minds to be totally inept in the intricacies of social interactions. These minds may use the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art tools of their field, but may get their theories for an unrelated field, from places like the Institute for Creation Research. Which have stopped putting out new theories since the late Bronze Age. We should also never give a person who is distinguished in one field of research, the same level of authority in another field that they don't deserve("halo effect").

I believe that even the most intelligent person will believe in any nonsense if you start young enough. An argument could be made that human reasoning only serves to rationalize and validate the emotional content that is already in place in their psyche from their earliest years. In other words, "We think in order to rationalize what we already believe". Our knowledge base and critical thinking skills would, at best, only circumvent this early belief structure, and not challedge it. It is very difficult to challenge our inner core beliefs, that were in place before our critical thinking skills were ever developed.

I also believe that the religious notion of sin and human brokenness, only instills the idea that we must distrust ourselves. We are taught indirectly, even before we could read of write, that human reasoning cannot be trusted. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure" (Jeremiah 17:9). "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts"(Isaiah 55:9). There are many, many other similar quotes. We even learn from an early age that whenever our powers of logic and reasoning conflict with the teachings of the Bible, God must always trump human logic and reasoning. Since it would be impossible to disagree with the word of God.

Finally, I believe that it is the social pressures to remain faithful that keeps people from freely embracing their own cognitive dissonance. The social need to belong to or identify with a group, is a very powerful security blanket. Many would prefer death to excommunication or exclusion. When your entire life is built around any idea, challenging that idea might threaten the core belief of who you are, both psychologically and socially. For some, it may even threaten their entire world.

No, religious people are not stupid. They are just human.

Believe me, people do believe in miracles. The bible isnt an atheistic book. How far they go to express it, thats totally different.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't know that I'd go down the rabbit hole of intelligence too far on this as that is only a part of our psyche. In all but the most extreme psychopathic minds, emotion is a very strong force and at times can trump logic due to the depth with which we feel things. We can often be swept up in the feeling we experience. Love is a great example here and suddenly a highly rational adult human animal can be reduced to a quivering, gibbering, blubbering mass of flesh.

Like Fox Mulder, from the X-Files, most of us want to believe. Sometimes our desire to believe gets the better of us and we abandon rationale because we succumb to a delusion of our desire. We fall in love with how we think things are instead of letting the rational side hold that ideal in check.

Aside from this, just because one is intelligent does not mean they cannot say or do some incredibly stupid things, not that I know anything about that personally, of course.

 

[nPeace]

We all know that donkeys and snakes don't literally speak to humans. We all know that dead people don't revisit their loved ones, or return to work after their own funeral. We all know that the physical laws in nature can't be dismissed, suspended, or ignored. We all know that even the most complicated ideas, lifeforms, natural or man-made creations, are all rooted in some simpler form. So, why is it that perfectly intelligent humans can believe in ghost, angels, demons, a flat earth, intelligent design, original sin, heaven and hell, or the existence of the supernatural? I guess the simplest answer is, "..that's just how humans are". Humans unfortunately, are just not entirely rational creatures, including the most intelligent and educated among us. Sometimes our rational understandings are replaced by superstition, subjectivity, confirmation and cognitive bias. Science is aware of how our emotions, experiences, prejudice, and personal interest, can affect our ability to critically think. Hence, the need for the scientific method of inquiry to avoid these problems. So why do people succumb? Is it a "response bias(gullible)", or a defective änterior cingulate cortex(B.S. detector)"?

I believe that intelligence is compartmentalized, or partitioned as a normal function of our brain. This allows for even the greatest minds to be totally inept in the intricacies of social interactions. These minds may use the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art tools of their field, but may get their theories for an unrelated field, from places like the Institute for Creation Research. Which have stopped putting out new theories since the late Bronze Age. We should also never give a person who is distinguished in one field of research, the same level of authority in another field that they don't deserve("halo effect").

I believe that even the most intelligent person will believe in any nonsense if you start young enough. An argument could be made that human reasoning only serves to rationalize and validate the emotional content that is already in place in their psyche from their earliest years. In other words, "We think in order to rationalize what we already believe". Our knowledge base and critical thinking skills would, at best, only circumvent this early belief structure, and not challedge it. It is very difficult to challenge our inner core beliefs, that were in place before our critical thinking skills were ever developed.

I also believe that the religious notion of sin and human brokenness, only instills the idea that we must distrust ourselves. We are taught indirectly, even before we could read of write, that human reasoning cannot be trusted. "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure" (Jeremiah 17:9). "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts"(Isaiah 55:9). There are many, many other similar quotes. We even learn from an early age that whenever our powers of logic and reasoning conflict with the teachings of the Bible, God must always trump human logic and reasoning. Since it would be impossible to disagree with the word of God.

Finally, I believe that it is the social pressures to remain faithful that keeps people from freely embracing their own cognitive dissonance. The social need to belong to or identify with a group, is a very powerful security blanket. Many would prefer death to excommunication or exclusion. When your entire life is built around any idea, challenging that idea might threaten the core belief of who you are, both psychologically and socially. For some, it may even threaten their entire world.

No, religious people are not stupid. They are just human.

Did you just say "Science is aware"?
Yes. You're right. We are human.

 

[WalterTrull]

I think a lifeboat with you, purex and RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha
would make for a movie.

Oh, Oh, Oh, can I go? (Raising hand, madly waving it about)

 

[Quintessence]

Was going to post some diatribe about how the OP is entirely missing the point of religious mythos, but @PureX pretty much beat me to the punch.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

First of all, we humans don't "know" any of the things you claim we know. We assume them to be so from our very limited personal experiences, and through our very limited cognitive grasp of existential reality. And those of us who are able to recognize these profound limitations also must cede the notion that there are many possible and exceptional phenomena extant in the universe that we do not know of.

Secondly, most of the people who read those religious stories about talking snakes and so on understand that they are mythical, symbolic, and metaphorical mechanisms for conveying otherwise difficult, complex, metaphysical ideals. All literature, not just religious literature, is replete with similar literary mechanisms with similar literary intentions even though the ideals being conveyed may be of a different intellectual category.

Lastly, the relative level of intelligence among humans follows what is called a "Bell Curve". That means that a few people are very intelligent, more are notably intelligent, most are of average intelligence, some are notably unintelligent, and a few are very unintelligent. So that it is inevitable that half of us will fall on the lesser side of the intelligence curve, and half on the more. However, it's not true that half of us believe those stories are a literally accurate representation of historical events. In fact, only a small percentage of humans are that naive.

So I think the more important question to you would be; why are you focussing on that small percentage, and playing them up in your mind to be so much greater in number than they are? And why aren't YOU recognizing these literary mechanisms for what they are, and thereby interpreting those ancient religious stories for their complex ideological content, as opposed to their misunderstood historical inaccuracies?

Thank you for your reply. Are you suggesting that because of our, "..very limited personal experiences, and through our very limited cognitive grasp of existential reality.", that we can only assume that snakes and donkeys don't speak to humans? What about the origin of complexity, or the dead returning to work? Must these also be assumptive? Do you know of any case where the natural laws were suspended, and replaced by any "exceptional phenomena extant"? I believe, regardless of my "profound limitations", if any of these events were to have occurred the very fabric of our human understanding would change forever. Our only real limitation is our subjective perspective. A perspective from which we can never escape.

Secondly, I disagree that only a very small percentage of people believe that the snake and donkey in the Bible, convey and represent complex, difficult, and metaphysical ideals. Do you also think that there is a small percentage of people that believe that the garden of eden existed, or that man was created from dust and woman from a rib? Do you think that these are also, "mythical, symbolic, and metaphorical mechanisms for conveying otherwise difficult, complex, metaphysical ideals"?

I certainly disagree with your oversimplified intelligence curve, which may ignore major social, racial, gender, age, and language variables. I also had no idea that my post was about naive people that believe snakes and donkeys can talk, or any, "misunderstood historical inaccuracies". I think that this is the straw man that you've created. My post was to explain IMHO why intelligent people(believers and non-believers) can believe in the most silly and irrational things. I even highlighted my four(4) reasons.

Not sure of the literary connection you are trying to make. But that might also be because of my, "very limited cognitive grasp of existential reality".

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I think the Bible is quite stupid in many ways, but that doesn't mean we all know the things you said are false.

You can't prove that it is.

So, you are giving opinions rather than facts.

You don't know that it is all false. That is a fact!

I do realize that the study of the human condition, including its genetic and psychological make-up, is not an exact science. No two humans are exactly alike, and no two humans will respond exactly the same way to the same stimuli. But there are general behavior and response patterns that do demonstrate some level of consistency. Since your comments were that the Bible is stupid, and that I can't offer any proof regarding my comments, what particular comments do I need to prove that aren't already self-evident or naturally intuitive? Which comments do you disagree or agree with?

 

[ecco]

Secondly, most of the people who read those religious stories about talking snakes and so on understand that they are mythical, symbolic, and metaphorical mechanisms for conveying otherwise difficult, complex, metaphysical ideals. All literature, not just religious literature, is replete with similar literary mechanisms with similar literary intentions even though the ideals being conveyed may be of a different intellectual category.

"Most people"? If most of the 2.2 billion Christians accept the bible as allegory, that leaves us with perhaps 1,000,000,000 Christians who do believe in talking snakes and a wooden boat loaded with two of every kind of animal. That's not very comforting.

First of all, we humans don't "know" any of the things you claim we know. We assume them to be so from our very limited personal experiences, and through our very limited cognitive grasp of existential reality. And those of us who are able to recognize these profound limitations also must cede the notion that there are many possible and exceptional phenomena extant in the universe that we do not know of.

It sounds like you've traded up from a belief in talking snakes to a higher level of mysticism.

 

[PureX]

Thank you for your reply. Are you suggesting that because of our, "..very limited personal experiences, and through our very limited cognitive grasp of existential reality.", that we can only assume that snakes and donkeys don't speak to humans?

Yes. Because to know this to be so we would have to know every interaction between humans and snakes and donkeys, from the perspective of those involved, to ascertain whether or not communication occurred. Which we cannot even come close to knowing. Therefor, all we can do is surmise from our own limited experiences, and from those of the people we do know and trust, whether or not such events are likely to have occurred, or not. The reason some people believe such things might have happened, or did happen, is because they know that they cannot know that they did not happen, or tat they could not have happened.

And they are right: they don't know this, and they cannot know it. And neither can you.

What about the origin of complexity, or the dead returning to work? Must these also be assumptive?

Everything that we humans claim to "know" is presumptive. Because none of us can knows how wrong we might discover ourselves to be if we had more information. Ad since we are not omniscient, this condition remains a constant.

Do you know of any case where the natural laws were suspended, and replaced by any "exceptional phenomena extant"?

What I 'know' has just been established as being speculative. Same as everyone else. So why are you asking me this as if the answer were going to define some sort of absolute truth?

I believe, regardless of my "profound limitations", if any of these events were to have occurred the very fabric of our human understanding would change forever. Our only real limitation is our subjective perspective. A perspective from which we can never escape.

Deliberately disregarding the profound limitations of our own subjective perspective sounds like a rather dishonest and debilitating cognitive course of action, to me.

Secondly, I disagree that only a very small percentage of people believe that the snake and donkey in the Bible, convey and represent complex, difficult, and metaphysical ideals. Do you also think that there is a small percentage of people that believe that the garden of eden existed, or that man was created from dust and woman from a rib? Do you think that these are also, "mythical, symbolic, and metaphorical mechanisms for conveying otherwise difficult, complex, metaphysical ideals"?

I don't know what people "believe", nor do I care. I'm more interested in what we can and cannot know to be so, and how we choose to move through our experience of existence given our profound ignorance.

I certainly disagree with your oversimplified intelligence curve, which may ignore major social, racial, gender, age, and language variables. I also had no idea that my post was about naive people that believe snakes and donkeys can talk, or any, "misunderstood historical inaccuracies". I think that this is the straw man that you've created. My post was to explain IMHO why intelligent people(believers and non-believers) can believe in the most silly and irrational things. I even highlighted my four(4) reasons.

And I condensed them into one reason: the profound ignorance of the human condition. We can believe in all sorts of things, nonsensical or insightful, because there is so much that we simply do not and cannot know to be so, or not to be so.

Not sure of the literary connection you are trying to make. But that might also be because of my, "very limited cognitive grasp of existential reality".

A lot of people are "art-blind". Maybe you are one of them. These are people who do not understand the mechanisms of artifice. And so tend to take everything at absolute face value.