Hypothesis: the more educated you are the less likely you are to be religious

Azaran on 26/1/2012 at 00:35

I like the idea of God – not the evil jealous moral dictator of Judeo-Christian-Islamic doctrine, but rather the philosophical One posited by ancient Neoplatonists, Pythagoreans, and other groups in late Antiquity. Monism makes sense to me, although ultimately I don’t really know if God exists. I lean more toward religious monism than atheism because I sometimes think “Why is all this here? Why does the universe exist at all?” I mean it’s quite possible that there is no reason for it, it simply exists and that’s it, but when I ponder the very concept of existence, I understand why it can be reasonable to believe in God.
You have to admit that there is something peculiar about the Universe, there’s an underlying order and pattern beneath the apparent chaos. Although we know how life began and evolved on earth, the very fact that there is something as unusual and rare as life on our little planet (a speck of dust in an infinite dark abyss), is interesting to say the least.
On another, interesting note, I heard more than once of studies that show that on average Atheists know more about the Bible than practicing Christians. I think there was a recent survey in the US about that, and atheists ranked first. I’ll see if I can find the link.

Harvester on 26/1/2012 at 00:59

Quote Posted by scarykitties

Problem is that being gentle about it doesn't work, either. Most gentle nudges against Christians will be brushed off by their faith.

Probably, if all you're bringing to the table are easily refuted misunderstandings on your part like the Ten Commandments argument you made earlier.

Quote:

Most debates will be "won" in their favor because it all comes to the irrefutable claim of, "you can't DISPROVE God exists, therefore he exists." So about the only thing you can do that will at least startle 'em is shake your head.

I think I understand your frustration a little. To be fair, (and I'm saying this to further give you a little insight into the Christian mind), I've found it's more often a case of "you can't disprove God exists, and I just believe He does exist, for reasons I can't even fully explain to you, I just do". They might have had (or thought they might have had, people kid themselves sometimes) spiritual encounters, that made a stronger impression on them than the logical arguments atheists can provide. You can hammer them down with your reasoning skills, and they'll think "whatever man, I know what God did in my life". The Biblical explanation is that faith is a gift put in your heart by the Holy Spirit. While that is a satisfactory enough explanation for Christians, I can see it being less than satisfactory and quite foolish for atheists, so I kind of understand your point.

Quote:

and then they will turn around and say, "Hello, little starving child. Say, have I ever told you about how Jesus equals sandwich? Let me tell you about it..."

Now you're just being dishonest. This mainly happened in the 19th century, where you had to convert before you were given food, or they only preached to you and didn't give you food at all. No major Christian charity organization I know of does this nowadays, maybe a couple of small fringe groups do this, but none of the major ones do. A lot of great charity work is done by Christians nowadays, some still preach as well as giving food/help, others just give food/help.

In Holland, a recent study has been done and it has been found that Christians in Holland give more to charity than non-religious people, and not just a marginal amount more but 3 to 6 times as much, depending on denomination. Meanwhile (and I must stress that I'm not attacking any person here in particular, I'm just noticing a general trend), I've noticed that lately, when I hear atheists on the internet talking about giving to charity, a lot of time it's about rationalizing why they don't give to charity (because there are already too many people in the world, because the money doesn't end up in the right place, because keeping weak people alive doesn't further the species and we should let natural selection take its course (popular with Ayn Rand fans), etc.)

Chimpy Chompy on 26/1/2012 at 01:02

Quote Posted by scarykitties

In the sense of someone saying, "You should look at this evidence," and you saying, "No thanks" and carrying on believing.

There isn't evidence that there's no god at all. There isn't evidence that there is one either. But then what do we even mean by god, like I was pondering earlier? Actually there's just a space with ??? marked on it cos we're trying to wrap out heads around probably unthinkable concepts. I totally disregard such things myself and stick with the material universe because it's something we can reliably and objectively know about. I think to take any particular religion and call it the Objective Truth is undefendable.

But I also think to go with something that works for an individual person then... *shrug*. I'd stick to worrying about displays of outright stupid. Or people trying to convert me. I've known a few people who have their own faith, don't claim it to be the whole story, don't use it to contradict scientific discoveries, don't push it on others, just go what works for them. Seems to me trying to argue them out of it is pointless and kind of a dick move.

And for all you know their mental growth could have far outstripped yours. Or mine.

Your location says Dakota so maybe you're used to dealing with christian fundies, in which case I can appreciate the frustration? My issue really is just with this need some atheists have to argue down all religion wherever it may lie.

Phatose on 26/1/2012 at 02:05

Can we stop beating around the bush pretending it's Atheism vs Religion, when it's 99.99% Atheism vs Christianity in the US at least? And the debate is anything but purely philosophical, since those groups throw around considerable influence and will happily use it in methods openly hostile to a number of certain groups, in ways which will directly influence the lives of everyone?

It's all well and good to go "Different Strokes for different folks" until those different folks ban some medical research for theological reasons and then you die because the cures it would've made available don't exist.

That's why hostile Atheists exist. For all the claims of "It's a personal thing", Religion is not - it's a social thing, and it effects those who don't believe as much as those who do. Deliberate attacks on religion are pretty much always a straight forward attempt to have one less person voting with the church then next time a "I hate gays" or "Abortion is murder, and should carry the death penalty" vote comes around.

scarykitties on 26/1/2012 at 03:05

Quote Posted by Harvester

Probably, if all you're bringing to the table are easily refuted misunderstandings on your part like the Ten Commandments argument you made earlier.

It was meant to demonstrate an excusing double-standard because I've heard it used in person. I don't necessarily see why it's such an "easily-refuted misunderstanding," except in the sense that the religious can bullshit an answer up for it. Which, again, was the point.

Quote Posted by Harvester

Yes. And believing based on experience is the most difficult, if not impossible, to refute. Now, it's possible that the wool has been pulled over my eyes, but I think that in *all* cases of miracles, it is merely a natural process that is not fully understood, therefore it seems to be God. That, plus a bias toward attributing the miraculous to a God rather than to random chance.

Quote Posted by Harvester

Fair enough. That was unfair. I was rather heated at the time of writing.

Quote Posted by Harvester

In Holland, a recent study has been done and it has been found that Christians in Holland give more to charity than non-religious people, and not just a marginal amount more but 3 to 6 times as much, depending on denomination. Meanwhile (and I must stress that I'm not attacking any person here in particular, I'm just noticing a general trend), I've noticed that lately, when I hear atheists on the internet talking about giving to charity, a lot of time it's about rationalizing why they don't give to charity (because there are already too many people in the world, because the money doesn't end up in the right place, because keeping weak people alive doesn't further the species and we should let natural selection take its course (popular with Ayn Rand fans), etc.)

Egh. Well, I don't know what to say to that. There's certainly no reason that religion is necessary for charity to take place, but if the statistics show that the religious are more likely to give to charity, I guess that's difficult to refute.

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

There isn't evidence that there's no god at all. There isn't evidence that there is one either.

That in itself seems reason enough for disbelief in my book.

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

But I also think to go with something that works for an individual person then... *shrug*. I'd stick to worrying about displays of outright stupid. Or people trying to convert me. I've known a few people who have their own faith, don't claim it to be the whole story, don't use it to contradict scientific discoveries, don't push it on others, just go what works for them. Seems to me trying to argue them out of it is pointless and kind of a dick move.

But what about when Christians push for religion in schools? To oppose them is to oppose all Christians, and most, even those who may not have necessarily been for it in the first place, will be offended that you are opposing *their* religion. What can really be done?

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

And for all you know their mental growth could have far outstripped yours. Or mine.

I don't mean to imply Christians are automatically stupid. That would be silly. What I mean is that accepting something is so without bothering to investigate because one is afraid of what one may find isn't the road to knowledge.

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

Your location says Dakota so maybe you're used to dealing with christian fundies, in which case I can appreciate the frustration? My issue really is just with this need some atheists have to argue down all religion wherever it may lie.

I'm a lot more vocal on here than in real life. In real life, I try to be tolerant for the sake of politeness and because I tire of the argument, but if someone feels the need to preach to me, they can expect me to preach back.

I think that I have gotten more than a little heated and hasty in my words here after all my dick-waving with dethtoll.

Quote Posted by Phatose

...

This.

SD on 26/1/2012 at 03:57

Quote Posted by Vasquez

The more you use your brain, the harder it becomes to stop using it.

It really is this simple.

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

My issue really is just with this need some atheists have to argue down all religion wherever it may lie.

If it helps, I don't just argue down religion. I'm fairly anti most other malign influences in society - child abuse, violence, fraud etc. Even more when all of those things overlap (hello Catholic church!)

Pyrian on 26/1/2012 at 04:56

Quote Posted by scarykitties

There's certainly no reason that religion is necessary for charity to take place, but if the statistics show that the religious are more likely to give to charity, I guess that's difficult to refute.

Oooo! Oooo! May I? May I? :cheeky: :cheeky:

Charity, done right (which isn't THAT hard), is a good, altruistic deed with which I do not take issue, in itself. However, I do take issue with using (inevitably inadequate) charity as a political excuse to avoid taking policy actions which alleviate the need for charity. Entitlements, for all their bad rap, just do a better job; fewer fall through the cracks. (Yes, there are statistics for this.) You want to help dying children in Africa? Great. You want to defund medicaid and let dying children right here in America hope for someone like you to maybe swoop in and save them? I'm not down with that. And with multiple presidential candidates espoousing precisely this viewpoint, I'm not really talking hypotheticals, here.

P.S.: I think the typical religious practice of sitting down once a week for some serious discussion of moral behavior is potentially a very good thing that atheists might do well to emulate in some way. I may not agree with any religions' fundamental premises, but I think we're fools to assume their practices have nothing to teach us.

Azaran on 26/1/2012 at 05:43

Quote Posted by Harvester

Actually most modern Christian "charities" (primarily the evangelicals from the US) are mainly concerned with conversion and use charity as a ploy to gain adherents and eradicate traditional cultures. They have little or no interest in real altruism. After the Asian tsunami a few years ago, there was a flood of US missionaries that headed to the region, and many promised to rebuild entire villages in exchange for the locals' conversion; well, people converted, but in most cases the missionaries packed their bags and left without actually doing anything. They go into the third world (nowadays especially India and southeast Asia), pretending to help, but their main concern is to convert others, and they use any ploy or scam to do it, including violence. Here's some of their schemes:

(http://sgforums.com/forums/3295/topics/371093)

Denial of Treatment - Often Christian hospitals publicize their services as pro-bono and for the needy and general public. However, when poor non-Christians require treatment, they are either force to convert or pay a large fee for the services. The incident below describes one shocking ordeal of how 17 Hindus because they refused to convert: The Serang Christian Eye Hospital was set up in the Gumma block of Gajapati district by the Baptists of Canada to supposedly provide health care to tribals. The hospital is run by the Council of Christian Hospitals, which has its head office in Bangalore. The poorest of the tribals are misled into receiving free treatment at this hospital in exchange for their souls. The victims are operated upon then pressurized to convert to Christianity, or else told that they will have to cough up the payment for the operations.
Dr Sadguna Raju, a Christian convert and ophthalmologist attached to the Serang hospital, operated upon 27 patients on August 30 and 31 of 2000. Out of these at least seventeen of them are now blind in one eye. Dr Raju left Orissa a day after the operations and the tribal Hindus were given no post-operational care at all. Many times the arrangements for these "quickie" operations are makeshift and rampant malpractice increases the chance that patients could be infected in the operation theater itself. In fact at the post-operative stage the Christian doctors had even noticed the deterioration in the condition of some patients but they chose to do nothing about it as the tribals had refused to convert.
Many of the victims had developed pesedomolas, a bacterial infection, following the operation leading to pus formation in the eye. Some of them have had to turn to begging for their livelihood after this devastating trauma.

Manhunts (South America) - Another method, aptly called "manhunt", involves the missionaries going out, sometimes in motorized vehicles, hunting for natives to integrate them into reservations set up for missionary work. The New Tribes Mission (NTM), for instance, went on such a manhunt in Paraguay. Five missionized natives were killed in one such manhunt. Those unconverted natives were taken to the NTM camp in Campo Loro. Within a short while, according to Survival International, all had diedof new diseases they had no immunity to. Stung by criticism, the best reply the NTM 's Director in Paraguay could muster was: "We don't go after people anymore. We just provide transport."
In another such "manhunt" in 1979, also in Paraguay, one of the frightened natives fell down from a tree and broke her leg. (Her right breast had already been shot off by a previous encounter with the missionaries.) She was compelled, with her broken leg, to walk back to the mission camp. She subsequently died.

Fake Medicines - One common tactic employed by Missionaries is to give a sick villager fake medicines which have no medicinal value and ask them to worship in the name of their faith for wellness. After several days, the missionary gives the villager an identical dose of the medicine, but this time it is the real medicine. Then the missionary will instruct the villager to now pray to Jesus. Soon after, due to the medicine and not due to Jesus, the villager will be cured. The uneducated and gullible villager, however, will attribute his cure to Jesus and convert to Christianity.

Guilt & Accusations - In 1975, Christian Missionaries were unsuccessful in converting the Panare Native Americans of the Colorado Valley. The missionaries had converted the Bible to their native language, but the peaceful and simple tribe could not understand the concepts of sin, guilt, war and plagues. So instead, the missionaries changed the Bible so that instead of the Romans and others, the Panare were responsible for the death of Jesus. One excerpt read: ”The Panare killed Jesus Christ, because they were wicked. Let's kill Jesus Christ, said the Panare. The Panare seized Jesus Christ. The Panare killed in this way. The laid a cross on the ground. They fastened his hands and his feet against the wooden beams, with nails. They raised him straight up, nailed. The man died like that, nailed. Thus the Panare killed Jesus Christ...
God will burn you all, burn all the animals, burn also the earth, the heavens, absolutely everything. He will burn also the Panare themselves. God will exterminate the Panare by throwing them on the fire. It is a huge fire. I am going to hurl the Panare into the fire, said God.”
And the simplistic Panare tribe immediately claimed they loved Jesus, fearing they would be burnt by God. Missionaries seem to go to any extent to convert others, even if it requires gross deception and misrepresentation of their own holy book, the Bible will for the benefit of “winning souls”.

Miracles - One of the most despicable ways of deception is how Missionaries pray on young rural school children. The school bus will stop suddenly. Young kids are told that they must pray 'Krishna' to try and restart it, but it fails to do so. Then they try 'Rama', then 'Guru Nanak', then 'Allah' etc. Finally, after exhausting the common names in India for spiritual authority, they are asked to say 'Jesus' all together, and at that time the bus suddenly starts. Everyone applauds the demonstration of Jesus' love and power.

There was also a recent documentary about missionary abuses among tribal peoples in Laos and Thailand:
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c5Xa5EOfuk&feature=gv&hl=en)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_a_White_God)

What's even more sad is that people give millions of dollars to these parasites, thinking they're supporting a good cause.
There are some Christian charities that genuinely intend to help the poor (primarily in Europe), but they're the exception and not the norm. <del>Ironically, today Catholic charities are actually pretty decent compared to the average </del></p>
Sorry, I spoke too soon:

Villagers furious with Christian Missionaries

Samanthapettai, Jan 16 (ANI): Rage and fury has gripped this tsunami-hit tiny Hindu village in India's southern Tamil Nadu after a group of Christian missionaries allegedly refused them aid for not agreeing to follow their religion.

Samanthapettai, near the temple town of Madurai, faced near devastation on the December 26 when massive tidal waves wiped it clean of homes and lives.

Most of the 200 people here are homeless or displaced , battling to rebuild lives and locating lost family members besides facing risks of epidemic,disease and trauma.

Jubilant at seeing the relief trucks loaded with food, clothes and the much-needed medicines the villagers, many of who have not had a square meal in days, were shocked when the nuns asked them to convert before distributing biscuits and water.

Heated arguments broke out as the locals forcibly tried to stop the relief trucks from leaving. The missionaries, who rushed into their cars on seeing television reporters and the cameras refusing to comment on the incident and managed to leave the village.

Disappointed and shocked into disbelief the hapless villagers still await aid.

"Many NGOs (volunteer groups) are extending help to us but there in our village the NGO, which was till now helping us is now asking us to follow the Christian religion. We are staunch followers of Hindu religion and refused their request. And after that these people with their aid materials are leaving the village without distributing that to us," Rajni Kumar, a villager said.

The incident is an exception to concerted charity in a catastrophe that has left no one untouched.(ANI)

(http://stupidevilbastard.com/2005/01/missionaries_withhold_aid_when_tsunami_victims_refuse_to_convert/)
(http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=60813)

Independent Thief on 26/1/2012 at 12:00

Quote Posted by Sombras

Whelp, there ya go: Hypothesis mercilessly crushed on the basis of Francis Collins', Independent Thief's, and some other people's religiosity. Serves you right, Subjective Effect! :p

Yesterday I attended a morning Bible study at a local presbyterian church where I have a number of friends, many of those in attendance are doctors, lawyers, teachers etc-so the idea that 'religion is for idiots' bears no relation to reality. As for missionary tactics overseas, there do seem to be problems with certain groups-which is why my church had to ditch it's main denominational missions board in terms of financial support and switch to another whose focus is on helping native Christians who live in and are familiar with the culture to do evangelism rather than sending hoards of outsiders trampling in.

DDL on 26/1/2012 at 12:12

You...really don't get what Sombras was saying there, do you?

Lets see if I can make it simpler: sporadic, anecdotal accounts of "HAY I GOTTA DOCTOR FREIND WHOS CHRISTIAN!" does not disprove the hypothesis. If the hypothesis was "All doctors are not christian", then as soon as your account of your friend was verified, we could consider that hypothesis debunked.

That is not, however, the hypothesis.

"The more educated you are the less likely you are to be religious" is the hypothesis (emphasis mine). Less likely. That does not in any way whatsoever suggest that educated people cannot be religious, it simply suggests that perhaps the distribution of religiousness in people is skewed toward the less educated end of the spectrum.

Now if you could produce validated statistics for the entire planet, and demonstrate that there is either no correlation between educational level and faith, or a positive correlation between educational level and faith, then we could consider the hypothesis debunked.

"My local church group has some smart peeps in it", however, is massively insufficient. And that is Sombras' point.