Hypothesis: the more educated you are the less likely you are to be religious - by SubJeff
Beleg Cúthalion on 24/1/2012 at 20:17
Quote Posted by Phatose
Once you've embraced the concept of an unknowable invisible overlord who makes all the rules, it becomes impossible (sic!) to answer moral issues on logical grounds. Morality reduces to authority, and an unquestionable one at that.
This is actually where things get interesting. How do you know religious are per se unable to think outside their religion? This might refer to some but by far not all of them (not even fanatics I'm sure), but it's exactly this undifferentiated view I was talking about. I consider religions as attempts to establish ethical rules different from some sort of natural law or whatever was in effect eight thousand years ago. So what matters IMHO is the core idea of it concerning worldly life (and the transcendent layer of course). Since these core ideas are more or less equal in every religion, I'd say the "bad" history of every religion is the history of people not being able to actually enforce these inner principles and thus the most important part of their religion. Rather, people tend to focus on outer aspects and ways to legitimate their actions driven by self-preservation.
Does one need intelligence or education to follow? :p
SubJeff on 24/1/2012 at 20:19
Quote Posted by Phatose
Well, if we're dealing particularly with the medical field is it possible that higher levels of education tend to run into problems with highly religious section of the population more often? Perhaps they're called in more often in problem cases, where religious belief impair what would typically be a cut and dried treatment?
Hmm. This has some weight, for sure. Example: Jehovah's Witness, brought in for emergency C-Section. Told about risks, about potential blood loss. Nope, absolutely does not want any blood products. Fine, we get this often. No cell-saver either? Fine.
So nothing is set in motion because they don't want it.
Half-way through op, after fairly large blood loss and feeling a bit sick/lightheaded, changes mind - wants it all, or wants cell-saver, or whatever. This is now a massive job for everyone involved, patient may die, everyone has to rush around, it gets pretty hairy, sometimes they do die, etc etc.
All of this would have been avoided if there was no religion based refusal of blood products to begin with.
Now
I personally don't have a problem with this - it's their choice and I absolutely and completely respect that and when it comes down to a serious emergency situation I'm willing to step up and not complain because I'm kind of crazy like that and I quite like dealing with seriously acute problems (it's what I signed up for!).
But some of my colleagues find it tiresome, a hassle, and some find it ridiculous and resent it. Of course JWs aren't the people who alter treatment decisions based on religion. In some of the high density Muslim areas getting a male doctor in to see a pregnant woman can be... problematic. Usually because of the husband.
So yeah, there is that angle.
scarykitties on 24/1/2012 at 21:21
Then there's the Hitchens debate, which posits that Christianity (Catholicism to be specific, if I'm not mistaken) is responsible for mass-murder because it refuses to allow the distribution of condoms in African countries, allowing AIDS to spread, guaranteeing the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Deaths that come from following religious guidelines are the fault of those religions. One or two influential people within a cult say something is a rule because of their personal prejudice, and because it's a popular cult, thousands die. Is there really any OTHER reason necessary to hate religion?
SubJeff on 24/1/2012 at 21:49
Quote Posted by demagogue
I think two things are going on. One is self-selection & the causation is the other way around. People that are more free-thinking are more disposed towards getting more education I think, maybe because they don't see as much threat in it (as religious people might) and already think more pragmatically about life (education=primary route to success, as opposed to more faith).
Yes, I think there is much to be said for this pov, but I don't think it's the only thing at play here. Some of the religious people are also very pragmatic in other areas (though there is one person in particular who is a real "God will get you through it" airy fairy evangelist who can't see how to get around a problem without God being involved somehow).
Quote Posted by Independent Thief
Nonsense, Francis Collins (founder of BioLogos) has a Phd, I have a 4 year degree and I have known numerous other people who are well educated and successful who have some sort of religious faith. "Only stupid people are religious" is just another stereotype.
You never did stats in those 4 years, did you?
scarykitties - I think that's a pretty ignorant pov. Sure, religion X may cause issues in county/situation Y but that doesn't mean that someone's interpretation and following of that religion has anything to do with it. In fact they may not take the religion that far. I work with a lot of Muslims. None of them have anything to do with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and I think disliking their religion because of something some nutter does whilst claiming it's in the the name of Islam is ignorant at best, outright prejudiced at worst.
demagogue on 24/1/2012 at 22:11
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Yes, I think there is much to be said for this pov, but I don't think it's the only thing at play here. Some of the religious people are also very pragmatic in other areas ...
Looking back at my post I think the bigger element was my second point, and I put that first one in just to cover that base.
To rephrase that second point, I think for a lot of religious people -- well people generally before the go to university & grad school or live abroad -- they're surrounded by people just like them and they literally never have anyone come up & directly challenge one of their core beliefs, much less force them to deal with that challenge seriously and not just let them push it aside & stop hanging out with that person.
But the more time you spend in university both of those things happen... You're surrounded by people from different backgrounds, but more importantly you take classes where the material itself forces you to think about a worldview & how everything fits together. And unlike friends, you have to take the material in the class seriously to do well. And if you are religious and want to get through it unscathed, you'd have to work hard to build a shell around yourself to not get challenged, I think.
My basic intuition is that people don't just randomly pick & choose core beliefs on whims (some people probably do, but then I don't expect they'll be very solid beliefs), but the usual situation, I'm talking about after childhood when it's not just your upbringing but you're molding your own values, I think is people have some confrontation that burns a core belief into them -- not always necessarily directly by a friend or mentor; maybe it's a book they read or movie they watched -- but either they are greatly inspired by some heroic figure they admire that's professing some belief, or they are slammed with serious disillusionment when something they used to believe is challenged & it doesn't stand up to it very well. So those confrontations I think are what's doing the work, and that's where I see the main contribution coming from here.
scarykitties on 24/1/2012 at 22:20
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
scarykitties - I think that's a pretty ignorant pov. Sure, religion X may cause issues in county/situation Y but that doesn't mean that someone's interpretation and following of that religion has anything to do with it. In fact they may not take the religion that far. I work with a lot of Muslims. None of them have anything to do with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and I think disliking their religion because of something some nutter does whilst claiming it's in the the name of Islam is ignorant at best, outright prejudiced at worst.
Oh, I'm not suggesting that individuals be blamed for what their religion has done. I'm just saying that the faults backed by a religion belong to that religion, according to the debate that Christopher Hitchens would frequently bring up.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
My basic intuition is that people don't just randomly pick & choose core beliefs on whims (some people probably do, but then I don't expect they'll be very solid beliefs)
You should quiz Christians about their beliefs sometime, then. You'd be amazed at how much picking and choosing is going on.
For instance, most Christians would say that the Old Testament laws suggesting that gays should be stoned to death are out of date because they're replaced by Jesus in the New Testament, which overrules old laws. But those same people would probably suggest that one should follow the Ten Commandments, even though those ALSO are Old Testament laws.
If I actually met a Christian who only believed Jesus' teachings of "do unto others as you would have them do to you," I'd be completely fine with that person. Unfortunately, most religious people feel the need to impose their dogma on others, and that is where I have a problem with religion.
As for Islam, I find it difficult to be tolerant of a religion that debases women by throwing women's rights back five hundred years. Am I supposed to be understanding because it's what they think? Well, I think that I have every right to think what they think is ridiculous. I also have the right to say so, and I intend to exercise those rights.
If someone just needs something to believe in because they can't stand living without pretending that they have an imaginary friend, then that's their business. But as soon as they begin asserting that myself or others should do something because that's what their imaginary friend wants, I have a problem.
Beleg Cúthalion on 24/1/2012 at 22:34
Quote Posted by scarykitties
For instance, most Christians would say that the Old Testament laws suggesting that gays should be stoned to death are out of date because they're replaced by Jesus in the New Testament, which overrules old laws. But those same people would probably suggest that one should follow the Ten Commandments, even though those ALSO are Old Testament laws.
Probably because they were not "overruled"? Probably because Jesus (don't nail me down on the passage, I cannot remember them) told that there are two of the whole lot of rules that are the most important?
I mean, how can you rant about immobile dogmas and at the same time not employ the distinction necessary for this issue?
Quote:
If someone just needs something to believe in because they can't stand living without pretending that they have an imaginary friend, then that's their business.
It's exactly this arrogant unfounded religion-is-just-about-imaginery-friends thing that makes the oh-so-scientific-atheism look ridiculous and anything but superior.
@demagogue: I get the feeling that you guys are primarily talking about American or at least non-German environments. The whole idea of that most people grow up in enclosed sections with one prevailing mentality seems more than odd to me, even if especially universities/humanities have a big influence on the personal mindset. Sounds like an adaption of the country bumpkin moving to town story.
demagogue on 24/1/2012 at 22:44
Quote Posted by scarykitties
For instance, most Christians would say that the Old Testament laws suggesting that gays should be stoned to death are out of date because they're replaced by Jesus in the New Testament, which overrules old laws. But those same people would probably suggest that one should follow the Ten Commandments, even though those ALSO are Old Testament laws.
Your example is confirming my statement. The claim "OT laws have been completely overruled by faith in Jesus" isn't a solid one for that person if they turn around and make that inconsistent claim about the 10 Commandments, which is the mark of someone coming up with an answer as they go.
But that's not what I meant by "core belief", anyway, since I think most every person's belief system is subject to confusions & inconsistencies when you get down to details. (So I'll add that caveat to my post. Ad hoc stands for branch-beliefs probably is the norm, consistent with the availability frame in cogsci.) But a "core belief" is like "There is a God" or "People should have 'faith' in Jesus" (putting aside for now what 'faith' means, they'd add) on which everything else hangs. The core parent-beliefs are what I think get molded by confrontations and are quite solid (the person won't change them easily, without some other challenge as strong, and they'll be more consistent within the bounds of the belief itself; e.g., they might be inconsistent on the nature of God, but not on His existence), and the details get worked out in more ad hoc day-to-day life (the person might change them more easily in the face of weaker challenges or be more likely inconsistent without troubling themselves about it).
Also you have to distinguish what I meant by "solid" (I was thinking relatively impervious to challenge) versus "self-consistency" (fits consistently within its own belief system & logic). While those things are probably reinforcing, I don't think they always have to come together ... A belief can be inconsistent with its own logic but still very solid (the person won't easily change it), and a belief might be very consistent but not solid when a person doesn't hold it strongly & can drop it very easily under challenge.
Edit:
Quote:
@demagogue: I get the feeling that you guys are primarily talking about American or at least non-German environments. The whole idea of that most people grow up in enclosed sections with one prevailing mentality seems more than odd to me, even if especially universities/humanities have a big influence on the personal mindset. Sounds like an adaption of the country bumpkin moving to town story.
I should have started my first post on demographics that absolutely nationality is like the *first* critical category. So yes, that's the kind of explanation you might give in a US situation, and other countries would have to tailor it. I wasn't trying to imply this is the explanation for everybody, though I was hoping though that that kind of explanation might be tailored to different countries experience changing this and that details...
In the US, if you're rural, you're probably surrounded by religious people, and if you're in that circle it's actually sort of hard to even find people not religious, much less engage with them much on the issue, until you get to university. In Europe, I don't know the kind of situation religious people grow up in as well. I'm always curious about Harvester's background since if his location is accurate he grew up in one of the least religious countries on the planet, so his confidence always struck me as a bit odd, I just mean in the presentation; did he grow up picking fights with ~7/10 of all the people around him every day for years? But I think even in Europe, even growing up around people of different religions & backgrounds, I think it's still the case you aren't really challenged by people in the way you are when you go to university, right? I mean people are challenged before, in the US too, and do become more freethinking in highschool, but university just seems to ratchet up the challenges, and I imagine it can't be too different in other countries. The basic point is there's still this social fact SE mentioned at the beginning that AFAIK is consistent in the US and Europe* that needs an explanation, and I think the basic parts of what I said are still working (classes & situations that directly confront you), but by all means tell us how this statistic works there, and I'd be happy to hear it.
* BTW, I'm pretty sure SE's claim is *not* the case in the developing world, or not in the same way, where religious people are probably more prominent in grad schools and seeming irreligious is probably more professionally risky. I know even in the US, Jews, Hindus, & Muslims are actually over-represented in grad schools vs the general population. So we're also probably just talking about Christianity here too, not other religions.
scarykitties on 24/1/2012 at 23:14
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Probably because they were not "overruled"? Probably because Jesus (don't nail me down on the passage, I cannot remember them) told that there are two of the whole lot of rules that are the most important?
That's my point. Most Christians today wouldn't agree with passages claiming that one should stone homosexuals, or rebellious teens, etc. I'm just repeating the response that I hear from most Christians, that is, that Jesus overruled those Old Testament laws, which is why one doesn't need to sacrifice animals for one's sins and why performing actions on the Sabbath and planting different crops in the same field are okay. Don't complain to
me about Biblical ridiculousness and inconsistencies. I'm well aware of how convoluted it is, which, again, was my point.
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
I mean, how can you rant about immobile dogmas and at the same time not employ the distinction necessary for this issue?
Give me three good reason why I should respect someone's opinion that, because I don't do what they do or think what they think, I am a bad person. Religion isn't exactly known for being tolerant, so why should I be tolerant of religion?
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
It's exactly this arrogant unfounded religion-is-just-about-imaginery-friends thing that makes the oh-so-scientific-atheism look ridiculous and anything but superior.
Pff, yeah. Because who needs science, facts, or a grasp on reality when you have a really, really strong wish that something is so?
Quote Posted by demagogue
But that's not what I meant by "core belief", anyway, since I think most every person's belief system is subject to confusions & inconsistencies when you get down to details. (So I'll add that caveat to my post. Ad hoc stands for branch-beliefs probably is the norm, consistent with the availability frame in cogsci.) But a "core belief" is like "There is a God" or "People should have 'faith' in Jesus" (putting aside for now what 'faith' means, they'd add) on which everything else hangs. The core parent-beliefs are what I think get molded by confrontations and are quite solid (the person won't change them easily, without some other challenge as strong, and they'll be more consistent within the bounds of the belief itself; e.g., they might be inconsistent on the nature of God, but not on His existence), and the details get worked out in more ad hoc day-to-day life (the person might change them more easily in the face of weaker challenges or be more likely inconsistent without troubling themselves about it).
Faith is one thing. Religion is another. If someone wants to believe something, that's fine, but it's when those beliefs make them insist that others do what they do, or when someone claiming to be a speaker for God begins giving orders on how I or others should act and live our lives that it really becomes a religion and, in most cases, despicable.
Kolya on 24/1/2012 at 23:23
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Jesus (don't nail me down on the passage,
WHAAA! :D
