24
   

Why are better educated people less religious?

 
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 12:46 pm
stlstrike3 wrote:
Sadly, that website wants me to pay for a copy of that paper... which I may do, as I really do want to see raw data, numbers, methods, etc.

But this is now getting into the issue of what do you consider religious? Going to church? Or actually believing what the preacher says (and consequently voting the way he/she believes you should)?

I hesitate to mention this here, but my keen interest is in showing that education will innoculate individuals from hamstringing scientific/societal progress by allowing intellect/reason/knowledge to override the religious orders the vast majority of "the faithful" receive to vote down things like stem-cell research and protection of the rights of different lifestyles (a discussion for another thread altogether).


Yeah, I'd be curious in seeing the data too. Let me know what it says once you've paid for it :wink:

As to your area of keen interest, GWB has a BA in History from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. Education and immunity from religion are probably uncorrelated, I'm afraid.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 12:54 pm
ossobuco wrote:
Anyway, I pretty much subscribe to secular humanism, though I don't aver that humanity is the measure of all things, and don't think of it as my Faith Category.

So, anecdotal polka dot - I have a scientific background but don't consider myself a scientist.


Interesting choice of words, osso. When asked if I have faith in a deity I will most often respond that I prefer to put my faith in humanity. I guess that puts me smack under the 'humanist' umbrella.

Not sure whether I consider myself a scientist or not. Probably... if pushed to pick a category from limited choices.
0 Replies
 
stlstrike3
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 01:06 pm
[quote="JPB]
As to your area of keen interest, GWB has a BA in History from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. Education and immunity from religion are probably uncorrelated, I'm afraid.[/quote]

You just quoted me a study with an n=1. Statistical signficance does not apply. Smile

Hitler was a Catholic. Does that mean you can infer anything about Catholics based on his behavior?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 01:16 pm
I invoke Godwin's law, this thread is f*cked.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 01:59 pm
Aw com'on Set- stlstrike3 is a newbie, who probably doesn't even know about Godwin's Law. I think that this is a fascinating topic.........Hitler or no Hitler! Laughing

How about this? I had found a citation concerning Godwin's Law on Wikipedia, but the link did not work correctly. So I looked around, and found Godwin's original remarks!


http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if_pr.html
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 02:27 pm
From Phoenix's link

Quote:
I developed Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.


Laughing
0 Replies
 
stlstrike3
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 02:47 pm
Jesus.... I would love to retract my statement (actually, I think I can still, but I won't for sake of continuity).

Perhaps I should have used Stalin instead.

Anyway, I really do want to hear more feedback on the relevent issues at hand, so let us pretend that I did not invoke the Nazis and stoke the flames of thought again.

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 03:08 pm
Why? Because they don't believe in superstitious nonsense. Being educated. Smile
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 03:26 pm
Phoenix's first post misused the term, "mysticism". Mysticism, as I understand it, is the opposite of theistic religion, which is a gross use of quasi-rational and dualistic thought. Mysticism (as used by Schopenhauer, Niezsche, Aldous Huxley, Huston Smith, Miester Eckhart, Nagarguna, Krishnamurti and countless other serious thinkers) is more like art and poetry, employing are more intuitive (or whole mind) approach toward the understanding, interpretation and evaluation of experience--and I say this with an acknowledgement of its severe shortcomings.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 04:04 pm
Quote:
mys·ti·cism
n.

Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.

The experience of such communion as described by mystics.

A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.

Vague, groundless speculation.


http://www.answers.com/topic/mysticism?method=26&initiator=answertip:more

J.L. My use of the word seems appropriate.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 04:13 pm
The first two inserts approach the meaning of "mysticism". The last two are just expressions of ignorance. Don't support your errors by means of the ignorance of others.
Brahma will get you. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 04:17 pm
And Osso, I DO think that man is the measure of all things (pertaining to the human experience). What else is there? unless one is an entomologist, I suppose.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 04:31 pm
Man may be the measure to man, but what does the whale think?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 04:43 pm
Thanks Phoenix, i knew the history of Godwin's Law, but had never read Godwin's commentary on the topic.

JLN, you replaced Hitler with Alexander Pope:

The proper study of Mankind is Man.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 04:44 pm
JLN,

I'm trying to understand your "entomologist" point but I have that joke going round my head .....
Q:"What's the difference between an etymologist and an entomologist?
A:An etymologist knows the difference!

Seriously though ( Laughing )since this thread speaks of "educated people" we might home in on educare which from the Latin means to "lead out".
The implication is that "religion" is imposed from the outside through conditioning and socialization whereas "education" is about bringing forth one's "inner wisdom". The two concepts would appear to be incompatible and such incompatibility undergoes an attempt at resolution by a theistic sleight of hand whereby "a deity is the origin of the inner wisdom".
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 06:10 pm
Fresco, it was a very private "joke" (not ready for public consumption): I was thinking of an entomologist who thought the world was about bugs, indeed man is a mere aspect of the bug's environment. Another friend applied this to the virus, the point of man's existence.
I like the distinction between education as BEING FILLED WITH proper ideas and facts and LEARNING HOW TO MAKE AND EVALUATE ideas and facts.

BTW, I suspect that man's inner insecurity is the origin of his diety and other institutionalized fantasies.
0 Replies
 
stlstrike3
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 07:18 pm
Here is a respectable example of a study attempting to address the issue at hand:

http://undergraduatestudies.ucdavis.edu/explorations/2004/clark.pdf

Check it out... and let me know what you think!
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 08:27 pm
Be careful not to gloss over the existence of overlap. As has already been pointed out, many intelligent and well educated folks are religious.

And it may be the case that thoroughly considering all of the apparent inconsistencies attributed to one's religion might be sublimely worthwhile.
0 Replies
 
stlstrike3
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 08:30 pm
neologist wrote:

And it may be the case that thoroughly considering all of the apparent inconsistencies attributed to one's religion might be sublimely worthwhile.


Um... what?

If you would, please give an example.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 May, 2007 08:53 pm
stlstrike3 wrote:
neologist wrote:

And it may be the case that thoroughly considering all of the apparent inconsistencies attributed to one's religion might be sublimely worthwhile.


Um... what?

If you would, please give an example.
Very easy to find examples to the contrary. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/28/2021 at 11:08:09