"Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

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

"Educated people are more likely to be atheists."

Post by Ian » Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:21 am

A friend of mine posted this on his Facebook page. I would be interested in your thoughts on how you would respond:
Educated people are more likely to be atheists.
Religion works more through the emotions than through reason.
The more education a person receives, the more likely they are to become atheists - residents of more educated countries see religion as less important in their daily lives.
Why are highly educated people more likely to be atheists?
There are two categories of explanation - either religious people lack a capacity for rationality, or they choose to make a blind leap of faith and subscribe to the belief system adopted by their religious community.
The conclusions of a review of 63 scientific studies about religion and education state: “Most explanations share one central theme - the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to better educated people.”

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 » Sat Jun 20, 2015 9:31 am

My first reaction would be - well-educated people tend to end up the much higher income earners in their respective societies. This relative affluence has the habit of embuing a sense of security, a luxury not available to the poor, who know and feel that their house is built on sand. The relative affluent are less likely to look outside what they possess and have achieved to give their lives meaning, and more likely to buy into the Zeitgeist because, to put it frankly, it suits them. That Zeitgeist is increasingly atheistic.
In addition, when confronted with the Gospel they are more likely to feel uneasy about what they will have to foresake or at least lay on the line in order to ascribe their allegiance.

Mind you, if I posted that on his timeline I perhaps should prepare to be "defriended"!


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 » Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:37 am

Michelle, great link!

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 Jun 20, 2015 11:00 am

(I too have a close high school friend who posted similar stuff on FB, but I cant link the discussion without the entire FB page. The atheists in our philosophical meeting group bring this up now and again also, here is how I answered)

To bumper sticker a statistic, or use data without considering the other angles or related stats, demonstrates misguided information. The relationship between IQ tests and what a person believes about God is 'not only' a matter of intellect, since relationships by nature are not simply theory, and 'decisions' about things are not unbiased if what we derive and benefit from our decisions and beliefs effects our wants desires and self interests. Like determining a person’s love, desire, ambition, integrity or greed, envy, jealousy based upon IQ scores.

I am certain that if you polled a room full of people, half of whom said they do not believe we landed on the moon and that the holocaust never happened, while the other 50% held the opposing belief, you would find the majority of deniers have higher IQs simply because people with higher IQs usually end up going to Institutional Colleges and liberal Universities where these concepts are brought up. Likewise most average people never heard of these ideas. Just as average people may want to deny God, they never have a ‘good reason’ to doubt the existence of God, simply because they have not been exposed to this 'supposed' good reason to escape, release, and ‘exempt yourself from the moral obligation’ of having God ‘or an authority greater than your own thinking’ judge or ‘monitor your behavior’.

The claim of 'atheist', or just the claim 'I do not believe in God' is itself a 'label' in which one can use to state their independence, or separation from God, the morality associated with God, and people associated with religion. Not simply because evolution (the reason) is a good reason, and not because it has debunked creationism, and not because evolution has proof, but simply because it can be used as an argument, even if it is wrong. ‘I don’t believe in God’ is as much a statement label as is ‘Coexist’ or ‘Question authority’ An educated person is more likely to have such a sticker, because it is a statement of opinion rather than substance. People identify with this thinking because they expose themselves to these ideas more than the uneducated. Not that the options are true, or based on better evidence, just that there are more options.

Very educated atheists I know with high IQs also seem unable to get a job / know how to respect and treat a good wife well / know how to control their behavior / or parallel park, sometimes being smart in one area seriously effects the other intellects it seems. Emotional, cognitive, and creative intelligence are also intellects. Not everything can be graphed, correlated, and charted.

I believe everyone is an idiot with various gifts wired in here and there. I know very intelligent people who cant figure out the simplest things. Doctors who have no sense of reason or history, can’t seem to cross a street without getting lost, engineers who panic picking out something to eat, or when challenged to fix a sprinkler pipe.

On the other hand, I believe millions of intelligent people have left the church and belief in God simply because they can perceive the ridiculousness of religious institutions and the manipulation that dominates Christianity. From pompous Popes and Clergy standing in flowing robes and elaborate palaces all the while telling us they represent God love and humility. Even former believers who when struck with the plain bible readings of good men who walked in humility, walked around in sandals and poverty, speaking of equality, love and integrity with one another, have to conclude there is a serious contradiction between what Christianity purports to be, and what Christians practice and model as truth.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

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

Post by Paidion » Sat Jun 20, 2015 11:24 am

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, indicated that over half the members believe in some form of deity or higher power.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie ... nd-belief/
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

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 » Sat Jun 20, 2015 11:39 am

Though to be fair the assertion was about education Michelle, not IQ.

Thanks for the post JR

dizerner

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

Post by dizerner » Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:44 pm

You only need to study philosophy a bit to understand this logic is not that strong. Besides the fact that highly intelligent people can be immoral (a bad decision) or have a certain irrational belief (quite common), you can't ground metaphysical truth in logic. In that regard, if there is "something" in which we sense or contact a higher truth, it won't be through means of logic, thus putting all people (nicely) on an equal plain in relation to knowing a God. Logic itself is quite peculiar to study and ends up being circular, because you must use logic to prove logic is true. This does get tricky, because we could argue we need some logic to understand supernatural things, however I don't see how you could prove it in regards to knowing the fundamental nature of a thing. The mind/body problem and solipsism (the fact we can't verify our subjective experience through any external means) is an insuperable difficulty science can never get past. Or to put it as simply as I can, if there are things science can never measure, how will it ever discover them. And this has bearings on the so-called modern Christian "apologetics" movement, where they define "always having an answer" as being able to logically and historically "prove" that Christ is the most "rational" choice. And unbelievers can see through the apologists' "emperor's clothes," as it were (notice what a prominent modern Christian apologist says in an unguarded moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NObtN66itp8, and also I do love William Lane Craig and disagree with this dissenter's ending conclusion, but still). This whole huge modern apologetics movement has created a bit of bitterness in the opposing side, though one could argue it at least introduces spiritual concepts to the world (enter Paul and the philosophers—yet notice Paul ended up proclaiming not debating logic, the only thing a man with an experience can do), and some profess that it made a difference in their life. However, I can't help but see the foundational logic of it as building a house "upon the sand" since it goes against so many clear biblical admonitions that our faith "should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God."

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Logic and Other Philosophy

Post by Paidion » Sat Jun 20, 2015 1:30 pm

You seem a little confused, Dizerner.
You only need to study philosophy a bit to understand this logic is not that strong.
"This logic"? What logic are you talking about? Are you using "logic" in an unusual way? There are no degrees of logic— no weak or strong. I have studied philosophy more than a bit; I minored in it at university, and then returned after my degree and took several more courses at a post-graduated level.
...you can't ground metaphysical truth in logic.
Where else can you find a ground for it? In my philosophical studies, I also studied metaphysics. Logic was employed in assessing the various metaphysical suppositions.
Logic itself is quite peculiar to study and ends up being circular, because you must use logic to prove logic is true.


Logic is not circular. If reasoning is circular, it is fallacious—illogical. Also nobody proves that logic is true; it is neither true nor false. It is a method for determining what is true or false. If you disagree, please provide a proof using logic that logic is true.
The mind/body problem and solipsism (the fact we can't verify our subjective experience through any external means)...
Are the words in parenthes meant to define "solipsism"? If so, they don't. A solipsist is one who believes that only he exists.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/solipsism
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

dizerner

Re: Logic and Other Philosophy

Post by dizerner » Sat Jun 20, 2015 1:45 pm

Paidion wrote:You seem a little confused, Dizerner.
I disagree and think you are a little confused. Let's discuss why.
You only need to study philosophy a bit to understand this logic is not that strong.
"This logic"? What logic are you talking about? Are you using "logic" in an unusual way? There are no degrees of logic— no weak or strong. I have studied philosophy more than a bit; I minored in it at university, and then returned after my degree and took several more courses at a post-graduated level.
Look, it should be obvious that when I say "this logic" I mean an expression "the logic of this," that is to say, "the logical implications of the conclusion do not follow the premises." If I say "this logic that women are better than men is not that strong" I don't mean some general assessment of logic in general, I mean the attempt at a logical argument that women are better than men. I don't know how you can mistake what I obviously meant by being over-literal about what I said. :roll:
...you can't ground metaphysical truth in logic.
Where else can you find a ground for it? In my philosophical studies, I also studied metaphysics. Logic was employed in assessing the various metaphysical suppositions.
"Logic was employed." You'll noticed I mentioned that. Are you saying "employing" is the same thing as "grounding"? Because you must be able to see that's false. You can employ something without it being the ground for it's reality.
Logic itself is quite peculiar to study and ends up being circular, because you must use logic to prove logic is true.

Logic is not circular. If reasoning is circular, it is fallacious—illogical. Also nobody proves that logic is true; it is neither true nor false. It is a method for determining what is true or false. If you disagree, please provide a proof using logic that logic is true.
Please think about what I'm saying, I'm talking about affirming or proving logic is a true system in any way. Obviously in a closed system where presuppositions are not examined you can say logic is internally consistent. Lot's of wrong frameworks are internally consistent. :shock: "Nobody proves that logic is true" is my entire point, and since you agree with it, why are you arguing? :?
The mind/body problem and solipsism (the fact we can't verify our subjective experience through any external means)...
Are the words in parenthes meant to define "solipsism"? If so, they don't. A solipsist is one who believes that only he exists.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/solipsism
You are a little inaccurate when you say "A solipsist is one who believes that only he exists." More accurately it's "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist." Notice even in your definition it says "can be proved to exist." I merely extrapolate the natural logic of that conclusion by saying we can't verify our subjective experience through any external means.

Post Reply

Return to “General Questions”