Why are better educated people less religious?

fresco wrote:

Thomas,

If religious belief constituted a decision mechanism in life threatenening situations you would have a valid point. In fact such beliefs are about death threatening situations and constitute an opiate. Even worse the effects of the narcotic are such that its addicts can elevate "death" over "life" to the detriment of us all.

I think you've let your personal distaste for organized religion overwhelm your thinking for once. I grant you that religious belief does not constitute a decision-making mechanism upon which any individual can rely to make decisions in life threatening situations. However, the religionists believe, even without evidence, that they have a deity who has given them a moral code by which to live. Despite the fact that it is self-delusion to believe that such a "moral system" can provide immediate answers for the question of how to behave in a life-threatening situation, the religionists still likely believe that to be the case. If one of them has survived a life-threatening situation, they are likely to attribute this to their god, or a "guardian angel," or the wisdom which they claim their creed confers.

That this is delusional doesn't alter the power of the belief. And such people would no more believe, nor understand why you would say that, theirs is a system which is intended to immunize them from terror in the face of death. It is not an opiate, because an opiate dulls the sense to life's "realities" which might otherwise overwhelm the addict. The religiously fervent don't even recognize the depth of their delusion. The theology does not provide an opiate for one's life's realities--it provides an alternate reality altogether.

0 Replies

Setanta,

Thomas tried to support the "value" of religious belief. My "Devil's Advocate" position tends to stress the pernicious macro-aspects of individual "realities" against their micro-benefits. This follows Harris's position that moderate religionists (recreational users) give succour to the lunatic fringe (addicts) and have no moral authority over them. i.e. any belief in an "afterlife" tends inevitably to affect the valuation of "this life".
If the case seems overstated it is because 9-11 has given it momentum.

Your own argument highlights "moral codes" which I think is a separate issue to "belief". In a sense we could think of religion as the fiction which legitimized such socially pragmatic codes by attributing them with "divine origin". We only need consider our attitudes to amputation as a punishment for stealing, or the stoning of adulterers, to see where the present day relationship between morality and belief becomes problematic. Heller's celebrated "Catch 22" takes this dissonance to its ludicrous extreme when the Colonel orders the Chaplain to pray for "a tight bomb pattern".

0 Replies

fresco, Well stated.

0 Replies

I was only pointing out, Fresco, that to the true believer, the moral codes are inseparable from the religious beliefs, the "pernicious marco-effects" don't exist (a refusal to perceive--those bad guys, they aren't truly devout, they aren't truly religious), the "micro-benefits" are not micro at all, but fill their lives with meaning.

Obviously, all these effects are heightened in the realms of the fanatically devout.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

neo, It's funny you claim it doesn't come from the bible, but the over-whelming evidence says otherwise. Take the following link as an example.

http://www.fellowshipinhislove.com/paininhell.html

Sometimes those who call themselves believers are the ones creating the straw men is so easily attacked by non believers. I started this nifty little thread here just to show the absurdity of the immortal soul concept. So far, none have shown interest. But it is, nevertheless, an example of the huge gulf between what the bible actually says and what priests will use to gain control over the masses. After all, if you can't threaten 'em with hell, how can you pry loose their dough?

0 Replies

neo, It's not at all that simple; you should see all the grandiose churches around the world even in countries where the majority live in poverty. The one that really caught my eye was the church with a gold dome in India. Go figure; they ain't even Christians.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

neo, It's not at all that simple; you should see all the grandiose churches around the world even in countries where the majority live in poverty. The one that really caught my eye was the church with a gold dome in India. Go figure; they ain't even Christians.

I have always been of the belief that the true God would make his message simple enough that even the least sophisticated among us would be able to understand it. It is that, but it is also recorded in such a way that those overly rooted in their own erudition would have to check themselves to accept it.

0 Replies

neo, That's what is so confusing about your religion. It seems only some choice people (like you) understand the true message of your god, and the rest are ignoramuses. According to some statistics/polls, about 90 percent of Americans are christians. Out of those, you seem to imply, most are not "real" christians. Since you seem to know who they are, why don't you share with us what percentage of those 90 percent who claim to be really are "christians?"

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

neo, That's what is so confusing about your religion. It seems only some choice people (like you) understand the true message of your god, and the rest are ignoramuses. According to some statistics/polls, about 90 percent of Americans are christians. Out of those, you seem to imply, most are not "real" christians. Since you seem to know who they are, why don't you share with us what percentage of those 90 percent who claim to be really are "christians?"

Actually Jesus said it best in John ch. 13, vs. 35: "By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves." Whether any religion, Christian or otherwise, fits this description is a matter to be discerned. You'd have to look at more than a few, I suppose.

I know that no matter where I go in the world, regardless of race or nationality, I would be welcomed as if I were a family member.

Whether I brought coffee or not. Smile

0 Replies

"Why are better educated people less religious?"

Maybe this has been said, already-- I haven't read through, yet.
It makes sense that better educated people would be less religious and less educated people more religious, but I think the spectrum likely consists of a majority of people who do not maintain strong convictions either way. Peer pressure has a powerful influence not only on the uneducated (with their superstition-rich traditions) but also for those who aspire to be accepted as "serious thinkers" by the more educated classes.

BTW- I consider myself an atheist. But that's only because I live my normal, everyday life as an atheist. I never consider such possibilities as the existence of God or gods (or fairies or ghosts or whatever). But deep down I am aware that I really don't know anything. I don't think that makes me any less of an atheist, but maybe just a more honest one.

One more thing:
I really like the idea of agnosticism. (I wish I could be one.) But really, the idea that anyone actually lives their life as a genuine agnostic I find very hard to imagine. People who identify themselves as "agnostic", I think, are deluding themselves.

0 Replies

Well, King Friday: What would Pastor Rogers say about that?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

But deep down I am aware that I really don't know anything.

This is an honest starting point which we should all adopt. Of course it does not stop many people saying they do know. And not only do they know, but they know better than others who say they know. And if you dont believe them then you (as a 5 year old) are destined for everlasting damnation. What hubris. What wickedness to terrify children in that way. But echi is being too modest. We do know lots of things with varying degrees of certainty. We know the earth is spherical. We know objects move according to laws defined by Newton, and refined by Einstein. Quantum physics enables us to predict very accurately the behaviour of atoms and materials. Compared with the guesswork of old, we know an enormous amount. And its all derived through observation, logical deduction and the application of mathematics. Nothing we know has been revealed by the writings of bronze age priests trying to appease gods. And if one asks "ah but what is the purpose behind life" one may as well ask the question "why is there yellow?", but a serious answer would be imo "the purpose of life is life itself". It is most certainly not to do the bidding of rabbis priests and imans thus enabling them acquire great power and wealth in this life with fairy stories about the next.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo,
I really don't think I am being too modest. As you stated-- "We do know lots of things with varying degrees of certainty." But we don't know anything with complete certainty. Of course, in practice we behave as though we do (and for good reason). But when you get right down to it the fact remains that none of us truly "knows" anything. We're all assuming.
It seems clear that you and I have a better understanding of the value of reason than some others here at A2K (theists), and I don't mean to suggest that if we are not 100 percent correct in our assumptions that they must (or even may) be on to something. (More likely they are ON something!) Atheism, IMO, does not require that one is certain that there are no gods, but only that there is no reason to consider otherwise.

neo,
He's dead. Who cares?

0 Replies

well indeed. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. But continual persistant and regular lack of evidence might lead one to draw certain conclusions.

Take a look at the teapot theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

0 Replies

sorry the link doesnt work look up Bertrand Russell's teapot

0 Replies

Steve 4100,
Okay... I concede. You are right. Atheism is the only position in accord with sound reason. My atheism does not result from insufficient evidence for the existence of god(s), but from a lack of any reason to even consider the question. It is for this reason that I cannot call myself agnostic.
Anyway, I think you and I are in agreement on this. Eh?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

But deep down I am aware that I really don't know anything. I don't think that makes me any less of an atheist, but maybe just a more honest one.

No, it doesn't. It makes you an agnostic.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

echi wrote:
But deep down I am aware that I really don't know anything. I don't think that makes me any less of an atheist, but maybe just a more honest one.

No, it doesn't. It makes you an agnostic.

I'm not sure, kicky. I realize that I don't know what anything is or what anything means, or whatever. Still, I don't ever wonder if there might be a god. I don't have any reason to entertain that question.
I don't really understand gravity, but that doesn't make me think that a god may be responsible.

Why are better educated people less religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know