Why are better educated people less religious?

I brought up the issue of definitions early in the thread. It doesn't seem to hold much interest for the author of the thread, however.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

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.

Because we're supposed to believe that god the father, god the son and god the holy spirit, while being separate, are one.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I brought up the issue of definitions early in the thread. It doesn't seem to hold much interest for the author of the thread, however.

Oh I'm quite interested in the concept of definitions... but what I'd like to hear more of (and we've had some of this) is which definitions are the most useful. And if one is to design a study to put this to rest, which definitions would be most definitive.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

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.

Actually, when I started the thread, I was somewhat tempted to ask the question about intelligence vs. religiosity. But I think people find it more strident to equate smarts with atheism than education and atheism.

I fully believe that as intelligence and education increase, belief in a personal god has to suffer.

But to say that as one's educational level increases, this selects out progressively more intelligent individuals... I believe is flawed.

I wanted the conversation to turn to the concept of intelligence, and while that might be a more quantifiable variable in determining religiosity, being intelligent doesn't equate with seeking out information and using those faculties to understand our world and to make suppositions about it.

Becoming more educated, taking tests, answering questions, receiving degrees -- generally these things require engaging the subject matter at hand (moreso in certain fields, hence my insistence that the effect is enhanced in the sciences).

Ask yourself, "What are the questions that science answers that refutes those Big Religion gives?"

How about:
What is the origin of life?
How did we come to be the self-aware creatures that we are?

These questions are very high on the list, and scientists are, in my opinion, the best equipped intellectuals to give us answers.

I do not think it's an inappropriate tangent for this thread to start engaging the questions that science gives more satisfying and satisfactory answers than religion does. But in my mind it's a foregone conclusion that the theory of evolution is a far more deeply satisfying answer than "well, I'm too stupid to figure out how this could have happened, so it must be god."

Thoughts?

0 Replies

Quote:

inside higher ed link

Quote:

interesting forum discussion follows the article

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

neologist wrote:
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.

Because we're supposed to believe that god the father, god the son and god the holy spirit, while being separate, are one.

Once again, who told you that? Some preacher?

That many religious beliefs are, in fact, straw men is as much the fault of priests preying on the gullible masses as it is on those for whom the confusion provides moral license.

The trinity doctrine is not supported by the bible. Neither are the cockamamie ideas of hellfire or immortality of the soul, to name only a few. That you may hold up these absurdities as reason not to believe is, in itself, absurd.

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

I fully believe that as intelligence and education increase, belief in a personal god has to suffer.

ehBeth already brought some evidence for this, but I'll add that this is not my experience. I know many, many people with Ph.Ds in the "hard sciences," and not all of them are atheists. Some are quite religious. I've talked to some of them about it, and the usual answer I get is that religion isn't supposed to be rational. It's about faith. They think there's something inherently valuable about faith, and the (non-rational) religious experience, and that the two (faith, rationality) can co-exist. Indeed, that their life is richer for encompassing both.

As in, it's totally different paradigms. No, religion can't be "proved," but that's really not the point. Is romantic love rational? If your answer is "no," (and I'd argue with any other answer), that mean that one should never fall in love?

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I brought up the issue of definitions early in the thread. It doesn't seem to hold much interest for the author of the thread, however.

Oh I'm quite interested in the concept of definitions... but what I'd like to hear more of (and we've had some of this) is which definitions are the most useful. And if one is to design a study to put this to rest, which definitions would be most definitive.

It's your thread. I should think you would have some ideas about what definitions to use. I do recall that you listed criteria for what constitutes religious. However, you didn't tie that in with the "study" to which you refer in the first post. Although an interesting topic for speculation, this is largely meaningless unless someone can come up with definitions which have been used in studies which purport to have an answer. Then, as Dawkins points out in the quote Steve provided, you still have the problem of correlating "studies" which don't use the same definitions, and which don't ask the same questions. I've already asked, and you have failed to respond to the question of what criterion determined that 90% of Americans are "religious."

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

No, religion can't be "proved," . . .

Of course it can't be proven or disproven, not in scientific terms. Religion is about the supernatural, and science concerns itself with naturalistic explanations for the working of a natural world. Apples and oranges, really.

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

I fully believe that as intelligence and education increase, belief in a personal god has to suffer.

That ^^^ is part of your belief system.

Where's the science to back it up?

0 Replies

I suspect the corollation between education/intelligence and religion would be VERY strong if the comparison were between individuals with advanced degrees in the humanities and fundamentalist theists. It would coincide clearly with the impressions I've had throughout my adult life.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I know many, many people with Ph.Ds in the "hard sciences," and not all of them are atheists. Some are quite religious. I've talked to some of them about it, and the usual answer I get is that religion isn't supposed to be rational. It's about faith. They think there's something inherently valuable about faith, and the (non-rational) religious experience, and that the two (faith, rationality) can co-exist. Indeed, that their life is richer for encompassing both.

What the hell is "valuable" about faith? When it comes to any other area of our life, faith (i.e. believing without evidence) makes you a laughingstock.

What if your doctor told you, "It has been privately revealed to me that crushed daisies will cure your cancer." Or better yet, "It is my strong conviction that replacing your insulin with battery acid will improve your blood sugars."

If you are going to assign value to the self-deluding "(non-rational) religious experience", then do you also consider the self-medicating non-rational inebriated experience you achieve with alcohol (or illicit drugs) something to be cherished? (The legality/illegality of the method of achieving that state has no place in this arguement).

"Religion isn't supposed to be rational." WHY THE HELL NOT?

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

stlstrike3 wrote:
I fully believe that as intelligence and education increase, belief in a personal god has to suffer.

That ^^^ is part of your belief system.

Where's the science to back it up?

I shall say it again. My beliefs are based on evidence, unlike Christians.

I will repost the excerpt from "The God Delusion" earlier in this thread, as you obviously did not read it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

sozobe wrote:
No, religion can't be "proved," . . .

Of course it can't be proven or disproven, not in scientific terms. Religion is about the supernatural, and science concerns itself with naturalistic explanations for the working of a natural world. Apples and oranges, really.

And that's fine. Because science is absolutely willing to let religion make all the unsubstantiated claims about the supernatural it wants to.

The problem is, religion doesn't return science the favor. Religion butts its nose in a place it does not belong (i.e. science). Big Religion is trying to make it mandatory that we teach our children "alternative" ("primitive") explanations about the origin of species rather than evidence-based ones. It wants us to stop looking for answers to questions and be satisfied with "God did it". And it's causing stem-cell research efforts to be needlessly hamstringed. THAT is why this is ALL of our problem. Because the church doesn't want to be separate from the state. It wants to dictate lack-of-education and lack-of-scientific-advancement. And we can't let it.

"If it weren't for religion, Columbus might have landed on the moon."

0 Replies

Stistrike3, I agree with most of what you say (I am also an atheist), but I don't think that rationality is the only way we "know" the world. The arts and so-called "eastern" mysticism also provide entrees to insight and understanding. And this matter of understanding (epistemology) is itself a profoundly important and problematical issue.
I dismiss the thinking of a Jerry Falwell not because his "science" of the material world is incorrect; I do so because his entire mental posture is dwarfed by what humankind has, as its best, accomplished intellectually. At the same time I find inspiration in the teachings of mystical sages despite the irrelevance of their accomplisments for our mechanical manipulation of the world.

0 Replies

Having read through only the first four pages, I couldn't help but take issue with the original premise of this thread. I doubt very much the level of education has anything to do with belief in religion.

As someone had already pointed out, over 90 percent of Americans are christians. The mix of the educated and religious probably mirrors closely the general population; over 90 percent of the educated class believes in religion.

It's always been my personal opinion that religion is an accident of birth. Most follow the religion of their parents and/or country of origin. If one is born or one's background is from a catholic culture, their belief is probably the same. If one is born from a muslim culture, their belief is probably the same. It follows for Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and any other religion their parents or were exposed to.

Looking at it from another point of view, another good example would be the island state of Japan where most are buddhists. We can agree that Japan has a highly educated population, but the majority in Japan still believes in buddhism and shintoism, although christianity is making inroads into their culture.

I doubt very much level of education is the determiner of the belief religion.

0 Replies

Nodding to JL.

Stlstrike, ehBeth is literate, and then some. No need to yell.

0 Replies

Not reviewing every post by each here, I'll say I see a thread through the posts, pro and con, that there is some underlying duty of the non believer to repudiate the tenets of various faiths with clear reasoning, of the scientific sort, and humanities sort. I don't think so. The pudding proof is on the other side.

At the same time, though I'm not a spirtual woman, I understand those who search for spiritual connections, sometimes patterns, with or without a theistic focus. And, have also known scientists, well regarded in their fields, with concommittent religous belief - admittedly I've not known personally any fundamentalist scientists. But that's anecdotal, natch.

0 Replies

I'll add that I'm not sure I care about data from a rigorously worked out for-that-time survey. Seems like it would then be a Napoleon Tarte of Anecdote.

0 Replies

Interesting point re Japan, CI. So much is cultural.

0 Replies

Why are better educated people less religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know