Why are better educated people less religious?

No, I don't. Not believing comes first. One can always work up a refutation is one cares enough to engage.

I worked in immunology, am an atheist. You really want to have me refute 2 + 2 = 4?

I'm talking about the nature of not believing. I've not much care if you insist I work up argumentation. Perhaps for some, not believing comes after meticulous argument, fine with me. Indeed, probably true with me on some issues. However, I never believed in the easter bunny, and never felt the need to give some complex reasons why to anyone, and won't be starting in on that now, however you may call my comment 'ridiculous'..

Is there any evidence that, in the population at large, atheists are likely to be drawn from among the better educated and more intelligent? Several research studies have been published on the statistical relationship between religiosity and educational level, or religiosity and IQ. Michael Shermer, in How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, describes a large survey of randomly chosen Americans that he and his colleague Frank Sulloway carried out. Among their many interesting results was the discovery that religiosity is indeed negatively correlated with education (more highly educated people are less likely to be religious). Religiosity is also negatively correlated with interest in science and (strongly) with political liberalism. None of this is surprising, nor is the fact that there is a positive correlation between religiosity and parents' religiosity. Sociologists studying British children have found that only about one in twelve break away from their parents' religious beliefs.
As you might expect, different researchers measure things in different ways, so it is hard to compare different studies. Meta analysis is the technique whereby an investigator looks at all the research papers that have been published on a topic, and counts up the number of papers that have concluded one thing, versus the number that have concluded something else. On the subject of religion and IQ, the only meta-analysis know to me was published by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine in 2002 (Mensa is the society of individuals with a high IQ, and their journal not surprisingly includes articles on the one thing that draws them together). Bell concluded:
A meta-analysis is almost bout to be less specific than any one of the studies that contributed to it. It would be nice to have more studies along these lines, as well as more studies of the member s of elite bodies such as other national academies, and winners of major prizes and medals such as the Nobel, the Crafoord, the Field, the Kyoto, the Cosmos and others. I hope that future editions of this book will include such data. A reasonable conclusion from existing studies is that religious apologists might be wise to keep quieter than they habitually do on the subject of admired role models, at least where scientists are concerned.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I believe that: 2 + 2 = 5.

So explain to me with your english and history skills, not math or science, why I shouldn't believe that.

Without number theory (math/science) you can conjecture till you're blue in the face. At the end of the day, you have no means to demonstrate why this is incorrect.

Hold up two fingers (not those two!).

Now hold up another two fingers.

End of demonstration.

(of course, 5 may actually be right for very large values of "2" but let's not go there!)

So, you're saying I'm too stupid for the internet?

Way to make a point.

Eorl wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

I believe that: 2 + 2 = 5.

So explain to me with your english and history skills, not math or science, why I shouldn't believe that.

Without number theory (math/science) you can conjecture till you're blue in the face. At the end of the day, you have no means to demonstrate why this is incorrect.

Hold up two fingers (not those two!).

Now hold up another two fingers.

End of demonstration.

(of course, 5 may actually be right for very large values of "2" but let's not go there!)

Problem here is that this relies on ability to calculate mathematics.

I may be missing the salient point here but 2+2=4 depends on assumptions held in common about the nature of all the symbols.

Trivial examples of alternatives are
2+2 = 11 in base 3
0r
If it takes 2 minutes to boil an egg it does not necessarily take 4 minutes to boil 2 eggs.

It follows that numerical examples cannot be used to illustrate the nature of "evidence" lacking in matters of "belief". It is no good asking a theist for "evidence" of his "deity" when he is part of a group who hold that mere existence constitutes such "evidence".

Where "education" comes in is not so much in denial of such "evidence" but in the recognition of (a) the arbitrary or ad hoc nature of belief and (b) its documented pernicious consequences. The "educated" atheist reaches for his Shakespeare and declares "A plague on all your houses."

ossobuco wrote:

Hello? Not believing a construct doesn't require any elaborate science background.

This is such a ridiculous comment.

To meaningfully refute a construct requires one to provide a more plausible explanation.

fresco wrote:

I may be missing the salient point here but 2+2=4 depends on assumptions held in common about the nature of all the symbols.

Trivial examples of alternatives are
2+2 = 11 in base 3
0r
If it takes 2 minutes to boil an egg it does not necessarily take 4 minutes to boil 2 eggs.

It follows that numerical examples cannot be used to illustrate the nature of "evidence" lacking in matters of "belief". It is no good asking a theist for "evidence" of his "deity" when he is part of a group who hold that mere existence constitutes such "evidence".

Where "education" comes in is not so much in denial of such "evidence" but in the recognition of (a) the arbitrary or ad hoc nature of belief and (b) its documented pernicious consequences. The "educated" atheist reaches for his Shakespeare and declares "A plague on all your houses."

...No offense, but posts like this are crap...

LOL. It's amusing to see how irritated this all makes you.

I never said a scientific intellect was required to question religion.

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.

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.

Yes yes yes... so you questioned religion... 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.

And once again, the fact that he made a statement in support does not mean absolutely that religion was ever in question. That is an unfounded assumption on your behalf - however logical it seem to you.

What I said was that to question science in a manner that cannot be dismissed as philosophical wonderment, you need the ability to prove inconsistency.

I can question religion by saying "I don't think god exists." That is easily dismissed where as "we can show that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old" cannot so easily be pushed off. I'm not really interested in convincing you of this because it is an obvious fact. Sorry that you don't like it. I'm not saying that people with more artistic educations are stupid or useless or any of that. I am only saying that in this particular situation, they are not well equipped.

"I am a wise man, for the only fact I truly know is that of my own ignorance." -Socrates

Conversely, certainty seems proportional to stupidity.