Why are better educated people less religious?

I think Setanta just launched a battery of SAM's at you USAFHokie80 and the infra red homing system is locked on your tailpipe.

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

When it comes to some of the fundamental claims that religion makes about the world and universe around us, it requires a keen understanding of the scientific principles that are at odds with the dogma. (i.e evolution vs. creationism)

No it doesn't. As i have pointed out while playing with Hokie, all that is required is a healthy skepticism and the application of what is referred to as Occam's Razor. (William of Occam gets the credit, but he did not originate the principle, which, in fact, was evident to the Greeks more than 1500 years before William of Occam lived.) That principle is entia non sunt multiplicanda, which means "causes are not to be multiplied." Applying that principle, one can readily reject any necessity of the agency of a deity in the existence of the Cosmos. There is no need for a scientific education to accomplish that.

In fact, you are here displaying a narrow focus on the Judeo-Christian tradition, and consider that the refutation of religion lies in the refutation of "the Bible." But there are many, many more cosmogenies than that which is embodied in the Bible. Now, it is certainly true that applying scientific research to those other cosmogenies results in the same variety of hilarity as ensues when considering the silly claims found in the Bible. But one needn't pursue a scientific education to be equipped either to question anyone's cosmogeny, nor to challenge the "inconsistencies" of any scriptural tradition.

It seems that you partake of the same conceits which burden Hokie.

0 Replies

In both the initial post, with its imprecise reference to a "study" for which the methodology and definitions have never been provided, and in the quote of Dawkins which Steve provided, the contention is that those who are better educated are less likely to be religious.

Leaving aside the problems (which Dawkins discusses) of definitions and the correlations of such "studies," one thing which is apparent is that none of those producing those studies have stipulated that in order to be considered "well educated," one needs to have had an education in science. This canard is being advanced by Stlstrike and Hokie. The "studies" referred to simply stipulate the level of education, and, for as much evidence as we have here, make no reference to the areas in which one must be educated to abandon "religiosity."

0 Replies

What I said was that science minded folk tend to question the natural world.

I will give you that I mis-spoke when I said that these are the things (bond angles and thermodynamics) that lead us to question religion. The word "question" should be replaced with "refute."

0 Replies

Which does not alter the implication that a scientific education is required for someone to question either religion or the natural world, which is a claim which you have failed to reasonably support.

Next.

0 Replies

Quote:

The second person plural present tense of the verb "to seem" should be rendered "seems to you"--not seem. To bad you didn't pay more attention in English class. The lack of your facility to express yourself in English is further shown by your reference to "he" without further qualification. Now, i do understand that you refer to Cicero (what's the matter, couldn't you retain the name long enough to use it in your post?).

Bravo. You found a typo. That clearly destroys my entire point. Actually, I did pay attention in english and grammar. That is a typographical mistake. I've seen a few in yours but I don't really see the point in bring that up...

0 Replies

Quote:

To bad you didn't pay more attention in English class

Fight fire with fire, I suppose. I'm not aware of the verb "to bad."

0 Replies

Yes, it does appear that there are a great many things about which you are unaware.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Yes, it does appear that there are a great many things about which you are unaware.

That is an excellently constructed response. You just blasted me for a typo, making one yourself. Apparently it's ok for you to do it. That's childish.

0 Replies

Quote:

There are theists who accept that the plausible age of this planet is 4.5 billion years, but who nevertheless claim that the Cosmos is the product of a theistic creation. So, in fact, your reliance upon scientific evidence of the age of this planet does not serve to "prove" anything with regard to whether or not there were a theistic creation.

They can believe that if they want. The point of this evidence is to show that the creation as described in the Bible is not true.

0 Replies

I dealt with the point about what the Bible does or does not say. There are two issues with that. The first is that by referring to only a single scriptural tradition, you are taking a narrow view which ignores the enormous variety of theistic beliefs and cosmogenies, and therefore your reference to the putative (and inexact) age of this planet does not "prove" that religion is "wrong." The second point is that precisely because of the variety of theistic beliefs and cosmogenies which are immune to refutation based upon a claim about the age of this planet, a contention that only an education in science equips one to reject religion is not supported by that appeal to evidence. Doubtlessly, all cosmogenies can be shown to conflict with scientific theory. The point you have studiously avoided, however, is that it isn't necessary to refer to scientific theory to pick apart theistic cosmogenies. I refer you to Dys' remark about common sense, although i suspect that it won't sink in.

Once again, the "studies" referred to did not specify that well educated only means educated in a scientific field. Once again, a well educated person can reject religion and scriptural cosmogenies without reference to scientific theory.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Once again, the "studies" referred to did not specify that well educated only means educated in a scientific field. Once again, a well educated person can reject religion and scriptural cosmogenies without reference to scientific theory.

You are absolutely correct. I'm only saying that to "stick it" to religion you need to provide evidence to the contrary. Scientific folk tend to be better equipped for this.

0 Replies

Actually I mis read the question....(rule number one of examination sitting) and supplied Dawkins quote because he directly answers the question Are more intelligent people less religious? as opposed to Why are ...etc.

I dont think the lack of a scientific specialist education bars one from being able to demolish arguments put up by religious folk. Such arguments usually fall at the first test of logic and reason which comes with rigorous study in virtually any academic subject. I say virtually because I dont think theology itself (i.e training to be a theologian) is an academic subject.

Dawkins talks about Non-overlapping magisteria i.e the idea that religion in some way takes over when science runs out. However he questions why religious ideas are exempt from rigorous analysis. What annoys him is how the boundary is used to protect the theologians but ignored when the religiously motivated insist on sticking their two pence worth into a specialist area of scientic endeavour about which they generally know very little, e.g. his own field of evolutionary biology.

I thoroughly recommend his book.

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

. . . Although... the Bible does try to tell us that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.

Retards.

Where in the bible does it say that?

Perhaps the retard is one who has not made the effort.

There is an underlying fallacy in this thread which mistakes credulity for faith and naivete for spirituality.

Perhaps not without reason, for many summarily dismiss the concept of God based on thousands of years of flock fleecing and excesses by the clergy. What often escapes detection, however, is the straw man effect of these excesses.

You say the idea of the trinity is absurd: the bible does not teach it.

A loving God would not consign sinners to eternal punishment: the bible does not teach that, either.

The list goes on. . .

One of the reasons I enjoy talking with atheists on this board is that I agree with them on so many of their objections. The flip side of that is that, after I torch a straw man, someone else, resurrects it.

0 Replies

Speaking as a (former) scientist it is clear to me that "science" is adversarial to the details of some religious texts but has no argument against non-fundamentalist theists who claim that such texts are largely allegorical. On the contrary, when such theists point out the ephemeral nature of scientific "truth" or that all explanatory models rely on at least one assumption (following Godel's incompleteness theorem) the scientist must retreat to a position of "secular functionalism". In this respect the "educated non-scientist" has no disadvantage in the challenge to theists on the grounds of secular disfunction. Indeed he can draw on examples from "the arts" to illustrate such disfunction.

USAFHokie80 would do well to examine the writings of John Polkinghorne, (Cambridge atomic physicist and Anglican Dean) which endeavour to reconcile "science" and "religion" at a metaphysical level.

0 Replies

I think part of the reason is that us "better educated" people are all working on Saturday and Sunday and have no time to get to church.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Once again, the "studies" referred to did not specify that well educated only means educated in a scientific field. Once again, a well educated person can reject religion and scriptural cosmogenies without reference to scientific theory.

You are absolutely correct. I'm only saying that to "stick it" to religion you need to provide evidence to the contrary. Scientific folk tend to be better equipped for this.

It is neither true that one needs to provide evidence contrary to religion to "stick it" to religion, nor is it true that "scientific folk tend to be better equipped for [that]." The contradictions in the Bible, for example, can easily be held up to a reasonable ridicule simply on the basis that the scriptures are contradictory, without reference to science. It amazes (and amuses) me that you continue to fail to see the conceit (unwarranted) implicit in your position.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

I dont think the lack of a scientific specialist education bars one from being able to demolish arguments put up by religious folk. Such arguments usually fall at the first test of logic and reason which comes with rigorous study in virtually any academic subject. I say virtually because I dont think theology itself (i.e training to be a theologian) is an academic subject.

Precisely

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Speaking as a (former) scientist it is clear to me that "science" is adversarial to the details of some religious texts but has no argument against non-fundamentalist theists who claim that such texts are largely allegorical. On the contrary, when such theists point out the ephemeral nature of scientific "truth" or that all explanatory models rely on at least one assumption (following Godel's incompleteness theorem) the scientist must retreat to a position of "secular functionalism". In this respect the "educated non-scientist" has no disadvantage in the challenge to theists on the grounds of secular disfunction. Indeed he can draw on examples from "the arts" to illustrate such disfunction.

Once again, precisely.

When either the religiously scientific, or the merely religiously fanatical begin the rant about the excellence of their personal world views, hilarity inevitably ensues.

0 Replies

I find it very difficult to enter this discussion. We are treating our principal concepts, religion and education too simply. I would not consider business majors and christian fundamentalists to be either educated or religous.

0 Replies

Why are better educated people less religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know