"Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: "Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

Post by Jason » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:32 pm

Forgive me, but this conversation is a good example of why there are atheists at all. It's a peculiar thing to witness a group (of any sort) who can dialogue without ego and might just serve as the evidence Jesus intended for the world. Didn't Paul warn us about arguing over words, and yet we are literally doing this. The original post was certainly worthy of discussion.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: "Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

Post by TheEditor » Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:08 pm

Well, this is actually a good example of how the written word, devoid of the nuances of oral communication; hand gestures, voice inflection, facial expression, etc., can make an innocent aside cause another to read it as an insult. I cannot tell you how many times I have read a person's prose, whom I knew personally, and knew them to be decent, down-to-earth people, that came across either arrogant, or insulting, when it was not their intention. It seems to be the downside of written communication. There's no doubt in my mind that this interchange would likely have gone as follows in real life:

:?
:ugeek:
:roll:
:lol:
;)

Without the benefit of face-to-face-, we have the other. As far as atheists; there are, in my opinion, far bigger targets in Christianity than apparent petulant behavior. ;)

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

dizerner

Re: "Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

Post by dizerner » Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:23 pm

TheEditor wrote: Without the benefit of face-to-face-, we have the other. As far as atheists; there are, in my opinion, far bigger targets in Christianity than apparent petulant behavior. ;)

Regards, Brenden.
Amen to that. We can't forget that Christians are still, after all, human beings with imperfections... which is exactly why Scripture tells us to be forgiving and long-suffering.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: "Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

Post by TheEditor » Mon Jun 29, 2015 10:15 pm

I have long seen my role as the means God uses to test the love and forgiveness of others....at least that what I tell my wife. :lol:

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

Jose
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:42 pm

Re: "Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

Post by Jose » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:01 pm

Hahaha! Well, I guess that means you'll just have to keep dishing it out! ;-)

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: "Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

Post by Jason » Tue Jun 30, 2015 8:35 am

It's true that atheists (at least the vocal ones) are more likely to come out of academia. I suspect the reason for this is that atheism is a philosophy one adopts in a setting wherein talk of the supernatural is constantly ridiculed. We might call this academic peer pressure. This has quickly become the attitude of popular culture as well, so now we have a mix of academic-type atheists and those who William Lane Craig derisively refers to as village atheists. I fear the latter group has bought into atheism as a means of achieving moral autonomy, but that's just a hunch. As far as atheists, in general, being more educated/intelligent than religious folks, I haven't seen evidence of this. If we compare the average academic-type atheist to a backwoods Christian then sure. But I see no reason to make this comparison. That would be like having Stephen Meyer debate a village atheist on evolution. Not exactly a fair comparison. When academic Christians debate academic atheists, we see the real strength of the arguments.

So even if educated people are more likely to be atheists (which is only true in some regions), it would not therefore mean their position is correct. Most educated people in 1931 Berlin thought Jews were barely human.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: "Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

Post by Homer » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:01 am

And intelligence/education have no correlation with wisdom. All alike are prone to mess up their lives and the lives of others.

User avatar
Ian
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:26 am

Re: "Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

Post by Ian » Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:47 am

so now we have a mix of academic-type atheists and those who William Lane Craig derisively refers to as village atheists.
Though I`m sure you agree, the two categories overlap greatly. I have two very bright and well-educated atheist friends, one of whom before his retirement and for his talents earnt 700 times the amount per year than I do (for his dubious contribution to the advancement of safe cigarete smoking). Both of them have made moral decisions in the past that they would have needed to buttress with a humanist ("you`re a long time dead") philosophy. They are both well studied in the sciences, but if WLC were to spend time with them would probably earn his village atheist badge.
I will never convince these men through intellectual arguments. I will only convince them if 1) they see God powerfully at work in my life in a way unexplainable by happenstance and 2) if they fall under conviction of sin.

dizerner

Re: "Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

Post by dizerner » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:09 am

Just so people know that I can provide evidence for what I've said, many leading atheists agree that science cannot solve solipsistic ideas:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uaSO_xkigs#t=26m38s


26:38-28:32

Atheist: We presuppose that identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle are true... um... but that's a matter of practicality. There's no way to actually demonstrate this. It's the problem of proving reason with reason.


Theist: So then you're an atheistic presuppositionalist?

Atheist: Yes.

Theist: *laughs* I'm glad you admitted that.

Atheist: You're glad I admitted it? I admitted it during the debate with Sie at the beginning. It is the basic, common position among modern philosophers, is that we haven't solved the problem of hard Solispism (we may not be able to), we haven't solved the problem of induction (we may not be able to) and that we must, if we're honest, acknowledge that we are presupposing the foundations of reason, that reality is real, and that our experience of reality is accurate. Now that's at one level of conversation. Within the bounds of that framework, within the bounds of the reality that I experience, where I have already acknowledged that I am going to presuppose the laws of logic and these other things... then, and this is why, and it's probably not a particularly useful term, I'm still talking to some other people about it, this is why I talked about maximal certainty as opposed to absolute certainty... because much like in a computer game, whatever the rules of the computer are, something is true with respect to those rules. So if I've got a helmet that gives me +5 to fire damage, it doesn't matter that it's a fictional world, within the confines of that world, it's true that that helmet gives me +5 to fire damage or whatever; and so within the context or within the framework of the reality I experience, having presupposed these things, we can still make determinations about what's true and what's not. And it's not in an absolute sense, it's in this internal context.

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: "Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

Post by jriccitelli » Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:50 am

True Diz. Some atheists are indeed spiritualists, some believe in a universal soul or even mind (but it is collective and not 'a god'). Some follow the mutiverse science and string theory thread. Even Buddhists can be called atheists, or spiritual atheists, as it was Buddha who said he did not accept, or need a Creator God. If i had two lives to live simultaneously at the same time i would like to pursue the concepts of illusion, multiverses and the sort that are reality for those who follow string theory and Eastern religion. I would like to think Theology and science can easily debunk spiritualism, but you can't debunk something in another realm, if you are not able to enter that realm. Like I said, even spiritualist illusionists, like Hindus, look both ways before crossing the street (unless they are really enlightened) - (is it really enlightened to not look both ways? So reality sort of self levels itself out this way I believe). Illusion of mind thinking generally brings our discussion groups (the one I go to) to a halt, if objective realities are not affirmed, so we made it a rule that we agree to generally stick only with more objective realities.

Believing in God, although it can be a logical choice, can be as non-logical as I prefer fish over chicken, or jazz over classic music, our choice in 'anything' is based on many past experiences and personal preferences to anything. So intellect is not what generally decides our daily choices, I may know adultery is wrong but my mind may make a logical reason to justify having adultery, this is our wants overriding our choices, and either choice can be concluded as logical, when you do not have a god, which also was a decision we guided by preferences. I think it is a human ability, or bent, to logically justify something we know is not even logical.

The following question came up in our atheist vs. Christian discussion group yesterday: 'is my choice to like one food over another based on genetics, race, or experience?' (or, are some genetically disposed to choices, beliefs, or is it our environment, or is it logic) we laughed, realized that would be another discussion and went back to the topic of illegal immigration, our first topic. Our group went to 11:30pm, and none of us wanted to stop! (is debating a genetic thing, or?)

Ian, I was not sure what study or information your friend was referring to, there may have been similar statements out there. I did come across the following, whether it comes from intellect or IQ, in relation to my point that not all intellect is measurable by what is commonly known as measurably intellect, nor does this demonstrate choices over theism are not free from pure choice or desire, etc.
Dec. 20, 2012 -- Single tests that measure intelligence quotient, or IQ, may become a thing of the past.
A new study of more than 100,000 participants suggests that there may be at least three distinct components of intelligence. So you could not give a single, unified score for all of them.

“There are multiple types of intelligence,” says researcher Adam Hampshire, PhD. He is a psychologist at the Brain and Mind Institute Natural Sciences Centre in London, Ontario, Canada. “It is time to move on to using a more comprehensive set of tests that can measure separate scores for each type of intelligence.”

Intelligence is really a rather ambiguous term. We often debate what it means, how it should be defined, and if it’s specific to Humans. As such, I will start off with a broad definition. Dr. C. George Boeree of Shippensburg University describes intelligence as a person’s ability to learn and understand information, apply that information to solve problems, and engage in abstract reasoning. This definition is good, but it seems to be a little lacking. And as it turns out, Einstein has something to contribute to this conversation. In With Other Opinions and Aphorisms, he writes “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.”

IQ tests cannot accurately measure every aspect of a person’s brilliance (or lack thereof), and results can even vary from test to test (it’s worth noting that only professional, peer reviewed tests are accurate/accepted. Online IQ tests are just “for fun”). In recent years there have been many EQ (emotional intelligence quotient) tests that attempt to measure a person’s ability to identify, control, and assess emotion in others and themselves. These tests have not been widely accepted as useful, and in no way replace current IQ testing – but they are perhaps another way to measure a person’s mental faculty.
While IQ is often held as a steadfast measure of a person’s ability to perform academic tasks, that’s not the whole story. There are many other untested variables that contribute to a person’s intelligence–learning style, personality, mood–all of these things can impact intelligence and can sway the results of our cherished IQ tests.

http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/inte ... -part-one/

Post Reply

Return to “General Questions”