Why are better educated people less religious?

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.

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!

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.

stlstrike3 wrote:

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!

Reading... what, exactly, are you trying to discern?

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.

Past research suggests that correlating IQ with spirituality and religiosity will yield significant negative associations. I hypothesized that, using a valid measure of IQ, the current study will support this finding. By differentiating between religiousness and spirituality, the current study should also clarify whether the negative correlation between IQ or education and religiosity exists for spirituality as well, and help researchers distinguish between these constructs in future studies.

The findings indicated that religious participants did have significantly lower QSAT scores than members of the other three relationship-to-God categories (spiritual, agnostic, and atheist). This result suggests that religious individuals are somewhat lower in quantitative ability, perhaps suggesting less rigor in certain kinds of reasoning. This pattern did not extend to the other relationship-to-God categories, suggesting that there is something special about the people who identified themselves as religious.

JPB wrote:

stlstrike3 wrote:

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!

Reading... what, exactly, are you trying to discern?

Whether or not education and/or intelligence has anything to do with someone is more/less likely to be religious.

In the United States, religious attendance rises sharply with education across individuals, but religious attendance declines sharply with education across denominations. This puzzle is explained if education both increases the returns to social connection and reduces the extent of religious belief. The positive effect of education on sociability explains the positive education-religion relationship. The negative effect of education on religious belief causes more educated individuals to sort into less fervent religions, which explains the negative relationship between education and religion across denominations. Cross-country differences in the impact of education on religious belief can explain the large cross-country variation in the education-religion connection. These cross-country differences in the education-belief relationship can be explained by political factors (such as communism) which lead some countries to use state-controlled education to discredit religion. source

I'd like to say that I think this is highly dependent on the type of education (not necessarily the level). I'm sure I'll be yelled at for saying this...but... It is my opinion that someone with a Ph.D. in English or History hardly compares to someone with a Ph.D. in Aeronautical Engineering or Chemical Engineering.

All disciplines which lead to a doctorate require the student to study hard, and to learn a good many things which are not within the purview of their specialized area of interest, but which have a profound impact on the understanding the field of specialization. It is a shallow conceit of those interested in sciences to believe that they must learn "more difficult" subjects than those whose studies are not under the rubric of sciences. To revert to the example of history, which is the field for which i am best qualified to comment, a student of history who does not understand chemistry, physics, geography, geology, biology, climatology, archaeology, ethnology and linguistics will be hopelessly lost when attempting to make even a cursory synthesis of the historical records of whatever period she chooses to focus upon.

I'm not saying they don't study hard or are valuable in their own right. What I said was:

Students of a more technical field, science and engineerings typically, tend to study the natural world around them and question it

You example only demonstrated that a person in history or english might know a whole lot about what man has done or where he lived. That doesn't help us understand the world in which we live. History and english do not explain bond angles and themodynamics. These are the things that make us question religion.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I'm not saying they don't study hard or are valuable in their own right. What I said was:

Students of a more technical field, science and engineerings typically, tend to study the natural world around them and question it

You example only demonstrated that a person in history or english might know a whole lot about what man has done or where he lived. That doesn't help us understand the world in which we live. History and english do not explain bond angles and themodynamics. These are the things that make us question religion.

Having read history all of my life, i would point out that that study lead me to question religion almost 40 years ago. As Soz has pointed out, any rigorous study requires a healthy skepticism. This is particularly true in the study of history, when the degree of bullshit which it is necessary to wade through is enormous. Just a small example. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells of the great victory the Saxons enjoyed over the Britons after invading Somerset--they allege that the enemy were totally destroyed and driven off. The first question which occurs is, if the enemy were totally destroyed, who were driven off? Then, fifty years later, they recount an invasion of Somerset. If they had totally destroyed the enemy and driven them off fifty years earlier, then why were they invading it once again? That is just a small example, and one simple enough that even a scientist can understand it. A very great deal more subtlety is necessary to make sense of thousands of years of human history.

Bond angles and themodynamics won't tell you jack about why people behave the way they do, nor give you the least insight into practical politics. I consider it not unreasonable to point out that understanding human nature and practical politics will be an invaluable aid to anyone who wishes to live well and prosper in society--and even mere scientists need to get along in the organizations which employ them. (Ever try to eat thermodynamics?)

You love science--that's fine, i hope you enjoy and profit from a career you love. It is, however, a deplorable conceit to believe that your chosen field requires a superior knowledge on your part.

My point is that while you questioned it, scientists are the ones who are finding evidence that things did not happen the way they are described in the bible. They are the ones bringing the proof and delving into the real causes of such. Studying these things tends to make one believe the evidence at hand, not what some book says.

Getting that very expensive english degree is nice and all, but it doesn't prompt you to question your world or think about the complex workings of things around you like a more technical degree does. It is when you start to look into the workings of our existence that you can see religion doesn't really have a place.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

My point is that while you questioned it, scientists are the ones who are finding evidence that things did not happen the way they are described in the bible. They are the ones bringing the proof and delving into the real causes of such. Studying these things tends to make one believe the evidence at hand, not what some book says.

No, that was not your point, your point was that scientists are better educated and employ more rigorous standards of evidence than other disciplines, and now that you've gotten burned for that, you're attempting to rewrite the history of this discussion. This is what you wrote:

Quote:

Getting that very expensive english degree is nice and all, but it doesn't prompt you to question your world or think about the complex workings of things around you like a more technical degree does. It is when you start to look into the workings of our existence that you can see religion doesn't really have a place.

You falsely stated that other disciplines don't prompt one to question one's world or think about the complex workings of things around one. That is clear evidence that you don't know much about late 18th and 19th century English poetry, for example. You didn't mention the bible at all, nor did you address any "proofs" which science may or may not be able to advance in contradiction of the biblical account.

As a matter of fact, the very cogent reason which lead me to question religion was the appalling historical and geographic ignorance evident in the bible. Furthermore, religion has constantly attempted to poison the wells of history for their own reasons of policy. There are two near contemporary biographies of Charlemagne. One was written by Anselm, who was raised at and educated at Charlemagne's court at Aachen. The other was written about 50 years after the death of Charlemagne by a German monk named Notker the Stammerer. Notker's account is hilarious--it has flying bishops, and Charlemagne is portrayed as a slack-jawed yokel who runs after the bishops to kiss their collective ass and beg their advice. Careful modern scholarship supports the view that Charlemagne never wanted to be a "Holy Roman Emperor," and was frankly irritated at the interference of the Church. (In fact, it had always been obvious that this were true--Charlemagne followed the ancient custom of German tribes, and divided his kingdom among his surviving sons, and made no attempt to preserve a unitary "Holy Roman Empire.") But versions of his life such as the tripe Notker produced were the "official" version literally for more than a thousand years.

Your conceit is monumental--apparently, you believe that no one can know anything worthwhile unless they sit breathless at the feet of a wise and kindly scientist to learn it. What a joke.