Why are better educated people less religious?

cicerone imposter wrote:

It has been proven through the ages that man's scholarly achievements has little to do with what they are capable of to harm other humans.

Amen, pastor CI

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It has been proven through the ages that man's scholarly achievements has little to do with what they are capable of to harm other humans.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

0 Replies

stlstrk, If you don't like my responses, don't read them. I was responding to neo's, "As for the assertion that educational level has a positive correlation with religious disbelief, this could simply be a symptom of the arrogance that so often accompanies lofty achievement."

And you're the guy that skips over reading all or parts of other participant's posts on this thread. Go get a life!

0 Replies

A JW agreeing with an atheist twice in a single day. Look out the window! Is that an asteroid heading for earth?

0 Replies

Just another one of your imaginations, neo. Not to fear.

0 Replies

hang on. i though that many astro-physicists and neuro-surgeons and other educated people all tend to believe in God.

0 Replies

rockpie wrote:

hang on. i though that many astro-physicists and neuro-surgeons and other educated people all tend to believe in God.

Evidence, please.

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

rockpie wrote:
hang on. i though that many astro-physicists and neuro-surgeons and other educated people all tend to believe in God.

Evidence, please.

indeed. Did you listen by chance to radio 4 today programme this morning Rockpie? As part of a news item it was matter of fact reported that less well educated people tend to be more religious.

0 Replies

Steve, I doubt very much anyone claiming more or less education as being supported by "statistics or polls."

Here's the dilemma: over 90 percent of Americans are christians. No matter how we cut that between the educated and less educated, that 90% is pretty conclusive that both are "religious."

I wish somebody would show me my conclusion is wrong.

0 Replies

CI,

The statistical point is that "education" and "religiosity" can be inversely correlated but both affected by other social variables. There obviously is some "evidence" for the relationship which particular circumstances in the US seem to confound. The question is never whether a relationship "exists" but why its existence is investigated. (I remember Eysenck getting into trouble for reporting a relationship between "intelligence" and "ethnicity". He was accused of "bending the data" by pc lobby.) In other words "existence" of the relationship must be evoked or refuted by interested parties with axes to grind.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

The question is never whether a relationship "exists" but why its existence is investigated. . . . In other words "existence" of the relationship must be evoked or refuted by interested parties with axes to grind.

This is the most cogent and relevant observation in this dull, dull, dull thread. Axe to grind indeed!

0 Replies

fresco, Excellent point.

0 Replies

Apply this logic to the roots of the darwin ilk ... the hilarity of irony.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Steve, I doubt very much anyone claiming more or less education as being supported by "statistics or polls."

Here's the dilemma: over 90 percent of Americans are christians. No matter how we cut that between the educated and less educated, that 90% is pretty conclusive that both are "religious."

I wish somebody would show me my conclusion is wrong.

Sorry, I can't show that you conclusion is wrong, but I can probably acknowledge what you already know, and that is that religion doesn't make the person, the person makes the religion. 90% of americans may be religions, but of that I can sleep with some confidence that of that 90% only a small minority is crazy religious.

What I will say for the relation of education and religion is that at least in america critical thought is held in high acclaim in our institutions as ealry as Middle School. I think the more educated you are the more likely it is that you have had the opportunity to think for yourself.

This means at least to me that if the majority of that 90% of america is Christian, AND can think for themselves, they are probably good neighbors. I only worry about those religious types that constantly seek what to believe from others and make it their mantra.

That's all folks
K
O

(That's right Joe Nation, I used to use a special sig on my posts too!)

0 Replies

I have no argument with your "conclusion/opinion" about the degree of religious belief doesn't tell us anything about their character. However, according to the CIA Factbook, we have the following statistics:

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/aris_index.htm

The following three tables comes from the NSRI and ARIS data:

Top Religions in the United States, 2001
(self-identification, ARIS)

Christianity 151,225,000.
Nonreligious/Secular 13,116,000
Judaism 3,137,000
Islam 527,000
Buddhism 401,000
Agnostic 1,186,000
Atheist 902,000

0 Replies

Great link, interesting info too. I'm curious why "Nonreligious/Secular" and "Atheist" are concidered different. I'm interested in someone who identifies as one but not the other to help me understand.

T
Konfused
O

0 Replies

Quote:

COVERAGE OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS

One of the distinguishing features of this survey, as of its predecessor in 1990, is that respondents were asked to describe themselves in terms of religion with an open-ended question. Interviewers did not prompt or offer a suggested list of potential answers. Moreover, the self-description of respondents was not based on whether established religious bodies, institutions, churches, mosques or synagogues considered them to be members. Quite the contrary, the survey sought to determine whether the respondents themselves regarded themselves as adherents of a religious community. Subjective rather than objective standards of religious identification were tapped by the survey.

Respondents who self-identified as atheist were categorized as such. Those who said they were nonreligious were categorized separately. I know some pretty hard-core atheists who practice their atheism as a religion.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Great link, interesting info too. I'm curious why "Nonreligious/Secular" and "Atheist" are concidered different. I'm interested in someone who identifies as one but not the other to help me understand.

I consider myself nonreligious. I do not consider myself to be athiest, partly because 'God' hasn't been well defined. If you define God in a very specific way, then I might be athiest to that specific definition but we would have to cover each definition separately.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Great link, interesting info too. I'm curious why "Nonreligious/Secular" and "Atheist" are concidered different. I'm interested in someone who identifies as one but not the other to help me understand.

I consider myself nonreligious. I do not consider myself to be athiest, partly because 'God' hasn't been well defined. If you define God in a very specific way, then I might be athiest to that specific definition but we would have to cover each definition separately.

This is basically why i consider myself an atheist. If the definitions involve a sentient, discrete being, than i am not going to be convinced without some evidence, at the least a plausible explanation. Simply "pointing to" the cosmos and saying that its very existence is evidence of a creator is a non-starter of an argument to my mind, because it is a rather childish anthropomorphism to suggest that nothing can exist unless a sentient being creates it.

If one simply asserts that the deity is first cause, the prime mover, then i apply what is usually referred to as "Occam's Razor," and object that we don't need the middle man. That runs: god created the universe. Who created god? No one created god, god is eternal. There is, then, no need to imagine a god, the universe itself can be eternal--entia non sunt multiplicanda, causes are not to be multiplied, there is no logical need to imagine a god. Without being presented a description of god different from prime mover, or an anthropocentric and anthropomorphic sentient being, i have no reason to believe there is a god. That is not the same as denying that there is a god--it is simply skepticism. I consider myself an atheist pending the offer of a plausible definition of a deity.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Without being presented a description of god different from prime mover, or an anthropocentric and anthropomorphic sentient being, i have no reason to believe there is a god.

I agree with that. However, I can imagine descriptions of god which are not 'prime mover' or anthropocentric or anthropomorphic. And because of that, I can't take an athiest position in a general sense.

0 Replies

Why are better educated people less religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know