Hypothesis: the more educated you are the less likely you are to be religious - by SubJeff
june gloom on 24/1/2012 at 08:04
'Poorly thought out comix' indeed.
Sulphur on 24/1/2012 at 08:24
Bit of of a broad generalisation, I'd say. Cutting this down to two things:
Assumption #1: People who are more intelligent tend to be less religious.
Assumption #2: People who are more educated are more intelligent than people who aren't.
I can't say much about #1 because hell, someone could take a survey and find out, but IQ tests aren't exactly the best, objective metric to determine base intelligence levels in a population, are they? They're standardised to test for certain broad definitions of intelligence, and while that's a blessing, it's also a problem. I've known some very creative interpretations of religious gobbledegook used to justify one thing or the other, and the people who twisted those things around were certainly as smart as whips - IQ tests don't actually check for a general, common sharpness of mind.
As for #2, I know people with Ph.D's who strike me as somewhat dull when it comes to real world problems or social circumstances. And the same's true of the opposite - there's a heck of a lot of people without degrees who're smarter than your average college graduate.
There's a lot of give for the opposing viewpoint in both assumptions. I don't think you can generalise your observation as broadly as you have.
DDL on 24/1/2012 at 12:00
Well, the question is phrased in nicely general terms, so he
can generalise his observation as broadly as he has, and as such it's a reasonably testable hypothesis.
If he'd suggested that "all educated people are not religious", then you could throw that out with all the single, specific counterexamples provided in this thread, but simply suggesting "a negative correlation between education and religiousness" is a hypothesis that allows for a lot of outliers while still maintaining a trend.
In your disection of the argument, I'm not sure the two postulates you chose are actually what he's saying, or are even valid statements. Intelligence is (as you note) a very hard thing to define in linear, comparative, objective terms. Education however... is not. So keeping it at "as level of education increases, incidence of religiousness decreases" keeps things simple without bringing in awkward and often controversial intelligence tests. (though people have tried: (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence))
Of course, even restricting it to education would (if the hypothesis appears valid) not be an
a priori proof that "learning more stuff makes you less religious", but it would still be an interesting result.
...actually following that wiki link does seem to show reasonable support for the hypothesis, though a lot of it IS survey-based (which is always a slightly suspect data-collection method), and there are also a lot of additional confounding factors (such as political and economic status) that make it difficult to call.
Harvester on 24/1/2012 at 14:33
"I refuse to respect religious beliefs, and I refuse to respect people who hold them. Your willful ignorance is inexcusable and it disgusts me."
Oh no, random internet douchebag #4,324,856 doesn't respect me and I disgust him. I think I'll go cry myself to sleep now... :rolleyes:
"The idea that a being with immense powers exists, but never tampers with the world in a noticable [sic] way is an absurdly childish hypothetical scenario." It's true that God doesn't tamper with the world in a way where it's objectively clear for everyone that it's God at work here. But get a group of individual believers together and they could talk all day about the things God has done in their lives. I myself could talk about one incident in my life where I have a hard time explaining it in any way but as the work of God, but that would be useless, because people like him, as well as some people here, would not even consider those things, they'd call us liars or psychotics and be done with it. And sure, some of the stories
are lies or wishful thinking, but I've heard too many of these stories from trustworthy people to be able to think it's
all lies or wishful thinking.
If someone is truly looking for the truth, I'll offer my viewpoint and help him in his search. With guys like this, I'm not even going to bother. I'm sure he feels the same way about me, as do several people here. Fine, live and let live, as far as I'm concerned. I know that's not the way militant atheists think, they feel they must combat religion because it's dangerous and has a bad influence on people, according to them. I don't know what the net effect of religion is on humanity, I doubt it's as bad as some atheists claim but it's definitely true that a lot of evil things have been done in the name of religion. Personally, my faith has made me a better person than I used to be. I'm not responsible for what it does to other people, only for my own actions.
Phatose on 24/1/2012 at 15:42
Quote Posted by Harvester
I'm not responsible for what it does to other people, only for my own actions.
If you're propagating the system - and you are - then I'd say you're at least partially responsible for it's effect on other people's actions as well.
Beleg Cúthalion on 24/1/2012 at 16:08
...like the part that makes people better, for instance, if that is the system he propagates.
After writing about how to define intelligence and education, don't you think it's time to turn to the term "religious" and decide whether or not it only refers to this dig-myself-in-with-my-religious-truths attitude which appears to be associated with it everywhere on the net? I believe we already had this in the whatshisname...erm...Hitchens thread, so why is religion still considered an entity which must a priori be embraced with all its both inner philosophical and outer worldly ideas and phenomena...or otherwise it's not "fully" religious?
Making a clearer statement IMHO would be saying that more education/intelligence leads to less clinging to temporal aspects of any idea (because it's the education/intelligence which makes the limited validness of said aspects apparent).
Quote Posted by Kolya
It would be more interesting to hear what causes intolerance. Because apparently education doesn't shield you from that.
Probably not everytime, but in general I do think there's a tendency – although I'm referring to a sort-of universal education.
DDL on 24/1/2012 at 16:11
I don't think most atheists necessarily think religion is BAD, per se...but it does tend to make people less inquisitive, and be generally more satisfied with their lot in life, be it good or bad: "this shitty situation I am in is the will of god, and I will thus not question it."
Whereas asking questions of everything is a great way to explore how incredibly fucking crazy the world is (HOLY SHIT ITS AN ORCHID THAT SPREADS BY BEING RAPED BY WASPS), and come up with reasons why. More to the point, wholly consistent reasons why, rather than "god did it".
Thinking is good, basically. Questioning things = good. Blindly accepting things = less good.
scarykitties on 24/1/2012 at 16:27
Personally, I find religion a bit creepy and I instantly suspect a religious person's critical thinking skills. This is pretty much the same way I would react toward someone who claimed that they were regularly visited by aliens while they slept at night or someone who got glazed-eyed and claimed that they saw my dead grandfather standing beside me and that he wanted me to marry the first girl I saw because it was fate or something.
Too bad you've got to believe in magic to be elected President.
Quote Posted by Kolya
It would be more interesting to hear what causes intolerance. Because apparently education doesn't shield you from that.
What kind of intolerance are we talking? If it's intolerance of those who are different, I think that education lessens that kind of tolerance.
If it's intolerance for the painfully stupid, then yes, I don't think that education lessens
that kind of intolerance.
Phatose on 24/1/2012 at 17:01
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
...like the part that makes people better, for instance, if that is the system he propagates.
And the rest of it too, which is really the heart of the matter. You couldn't very well embrace racism for example, on the basis that it instill a sense of self worth while claiming to have nothing to do with lynchings.
I think most actual spite towards religion exists on those grounds. Once you've embraced the concept of an unknowable invisible overlord who makes all the rules, it becomes impossible to answer moral issues on logical grounds. Morality reduces to authority, and an unquestionable one at that. Whether or not legitimizing hatred and violence based on that authority was your intent is irrelevant - it's what you've done.
nickie on 24/1/2012 at 17:10
I often wondered and now I know. I am the only member of my family, siblings and older, who's been to university. I'm the only one who isn't religious. Q.E.D!
But they are all far more intolerant than I am. I often find intolerance comes from those who feel threatened in some way.
