The correlations

[ydoaPs]

It's been linked by me on this board about ten thousand times on a societal level, religiosity and just about every measure of social health are strikingly inversely correlated. But why is that? A study from last year in Nature may give us a clue. It shows that increasing analytical thinking makes one less likely to be religious. The correlation on a societal scale could all simply be because of higher proportions of educated people in the populations.

 

I guess education really might kill gods.

[John Cuthber]

Maybe God hates religious people.

[iNow]

It's been linked by me on this board about ten thousand times on a societal level, religiosity and just about every measure of social health are strikingly inversely correlated. But why is that? A study from last year in Nature may give us a clue. It shows that increasing analytical thinking makes one less likely to be religious. The correlation on a societal scale could all simply be because of higher proportions of educated people in the populations.

 

I guess education really might kill gods.

 

I think educated people are also less likely to be faced with abject poverty for any extended length of time. They often have greater opportunity to climb out from the doldrums advance themselves by figuring things out, and to seize good things in ways that change their life circumstances or situation where others may not (opportunities are less available to the uneducated because they quite simply cannot do as many varied things in different sectors as educated people... education allows for greater adaptability and flexibility of vocation). It's those who cannot escape poverty or who are suffering the most turmoil that tend to turn to religion as their crutch... Folks tend to turn to the church most strongly when their suffering and despair is greatest.

 

I suspect also that the analytical mind cannot allow the internal contradictions and inconsistencies in most religions to stand uncontested. It's either stop analyzing or stop being religious for many people (that was similar to the choice I faced in myself all those years ago, anyway), and not many can stop analyzing since it's quite inherent in their character... ergo, abandon religion for the mythology and fairy tale it is becomes the only remaining choice (or, live in a state of perpetual dissonance, but I digress...).

 

At the same time, we have to be very careful not to equate religious belief with ignorance or lack of education, especially since there are so many quite well educated and rather intelligent theists out there (granted, we don't often see them on the internet or here at SFN, but they are out there and generally in large number). I think this issue is much more about style of thinking (intuitive versus analytical) than about education or intelligence.

 

Whether or not style of thinking maps to measures of social well-being in the same way is another question to which I don't currently know the answer.

[tar]

It's been linked by me on this board about ten thousand times on a societal level, religiosity and just about every measure of social health are strikingly inversely correlated. But why is that? A study from last year in Nature may give us a clue. It shows that increasing analytical thinking makes one less likely to be religious. The correlation on a societal scale could all simply be because of higher proportions of educated people in the populations.

 

I guess education really might kill gods.

 

ydaPs,

 

I could only get the abstract, of the Nature study.

 

 

But "Analytically", those dot charts in the 10,000 times linked study bothered me.

 

The X and Y axis were not related factors. The Y axis were some selected measures of societal health, like teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted desease, child mortality rates and homocides, all areas where the U.S. is deficient, plotted against religiousty measures. The same X axis could have been plotted against favorable societal health factors and the "U" would have still stood out in the chart.

 

There seemed to be no attempt to actually determine the religiousity of the pregnant desease riden teen, or the dead infant.

Or any attempt to subtract the homicides related to drugs from the numbers. (I threw that in myself, as it might skew the numbers and have little to do with religiousity, one way or the other).

I would already have assumed there would be an inverse correlation between literal belief in the bible, and belief in evolution. (the Bible tells a different story). So all the X axis are already a given. Therefore according to the logic of study, any Y axis measure at all, would put the US out to the right, and only the choice of Y axis measure would determine whether there was a positive or negative correlation, when charted against the rest of the first world nations studied. Using this logic you could probably show a correlation between creationism and any Y axis measure, where the US would stand out, even probably the things you feel are the best results of analytical thinking.

 

Doesn't mean that we Americans are not fat, stupid, poor, undereducated, underprivledged, oversexed and have drug, gun and drinking problems, but I don't think "Church" is the main problem there.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Throw in overmedicated, over exposed to violent sport and movie, TV and game, and still, going to chuch, would not be the problem.

 

Perhaps our rich have too many choices and our poor too few.

 

Still, I see no way to blame spirituality for the ills and trust rationality for the sure cures.

Edited January 24, 2013 by tar

[tar]

As an aside: I was recently at a workshop/seminar for sustainable enterprise, held by a group of rational humans at a local university. I was surprised by some "new age" remarks at the beginning, followed by some breathing excercises and a moment of silence for self reflection, to put us all in the "proper" mood, for rational discussion and debate of the issues...creationism vs. evolution, was not on the table, mentioned or implied, but perhaps spirituality was, at least in its role to establish a commonality from which people of diverse interests and opinions could approach the problems.

[ydoaPs]

I think educated people are also less likely to be faced with abject poverty for any extended length of time.

On a societal level, yes. The second study was suggesting a causal link and not just a correlation between religious belief and analytical thinking. So, higher educated people are also more likely to utilize analytic thinking more often. I guess this makes education a sort of "double whammy" against religious belief.

At the same time, we have to be very careful not to equate religious belief with ignorance or lack of education

We're talking statistics here. There's no warrant to say it's true for every member of every population. You should know by now that I almost never use universal generalizations. At the same time, we must not go the other way and try to say that since it's not true in every case that it's not true as a trend and there is no causal connection. A anti-bacterial agent that only kills 99.9997% of bacteria is still something which kills bacteria.

I think this issue is much more about style of thinking (intuitive versus analytical)

See the paper in Nature linked in the OP.

 

ydaPs,

 

I could only get the abstract, of the Nature study.

It's surprising to me how many members of science forums can't access journals. If there's a university nearby, you can probably get a guest pass for computer access in their library and read it there. Simply accessing it from within a university computer network should give you access since most universities have Nature access.

 

But "Analytically", those dot charts in the 10,000 times linked study bothered me.

Are you sure it was analytically? The point of the paper in Nature was the disparity between the two modes of human thought. There's the emotional mode (which is easy for humans to do) and there's the analytical (read: logical) mode which is hard for humans to do. Evolution breeds laziness, so the emotional mode usually wins out. The findings in the Nature paper seem to indicate that the more one uses the second mode, the less likely they are to be religious (which is consistent with data about religiousity vs education level).

The X and Y axis were not related factors. The Y axis were some selected measures of societal health, like teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted desease, child mortality rates and homocides, all areas where the U.S. is deficient, plotted against religiousty measures. The same X axis could have been plotted against favorable societal health factors and the "U" would have still stood out in the chart.

Such as? The correlation holds with "favorable" measures like income equality, access to healthcare, education level, and life expectancy (which, by the way, was plotted).

Therefore according to the logic of study, any Y axis measure at all, would put the US out to the right, and only the choice of Y axis measure would determine whether there was a positive or negative correlation, when charted against the rest of the first world nations studied. Using this logic you could probably show a correlation between creationism and any Y axis measure, where the US would stand out, even probably the things you feel are the best results of analytical thinking.

Newsflash: the US isn't the only country in the world. Draw a line for best fit and remove the US if it offends you so much. The correlations still hold.

 

There's also a correlation with IQ which could hint at education being a key factor. Well, the right kind of education. The kind teaching actual cognitive skills rather than a list of facts.

[tar]

Second aside: Watched Obama, Biden and their wifes at a service at the National Cathedral, associated with the inaguaration.

Biden looked a little uncomfortable, Obama soaked it all in and enjoyed the sermons and the singing. Take-away? IF there is a commonality between the major religions and their "belief", enough to bring together Jew, Christian and Muslim traditions, in one episode, embraced by a Pragmatic, Intelligent, and Rational President, then hope and inspiration and moving forward with common purpose does not require a fight between spirituality and science, nor require that either camp prove the other wrong.

[iNow]

We're talking statistics here. There's no warrant to say it's true for every member of every population. You should know by now that I almost never use universal generalizations. At the same time, we must not go the other way and try to say that since it's not true in every case that it's not true as a trend and there is no causal connection.

 

Sure, I don't disagree, but the studies on this (religiosity correlation with educational attainment) are hardly conclusive (yet).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_education#Relationship_between_education_and_religiosity

 

See the paper in Nature linked in the OP.

 

It's pay-walled. Sorry I wasn't able to read it before commenting. I'd like to read more about what it says on modes of thought, but it sounds like it largely aligns with the other things I've already read on this topic.

 

There's also a correlation with IQ which could hint at education being a key factor. Well, the right kind of education. The kind teaching actual cognitive skills rather than a list of facts.

 

So, in other words, education that doesn't occur in either Texas or maybe Kentucky?

[tar]

ydoaPs,

 

Well then what is your take away? That religion is the opiate of the masses, inflicted upon them by elites that know better?

 

I have real problems with people more intelligent than I am, telling me how to be and how to think. I don't particularly like being in a position, where they could know a way to manipulate and fool me, and I would have no way of knowing when they were being true to me, and when they were fooling me, for their own purposes.

 

Evendenty, if your thesis is correct, such a condition is a real and present one. The unanalytical through lack of gray matter are doing it wrong, and those with sufficient enough grey matter are doing it right. "Players and pawns" would be the best description of human society. Little fish getting eaten by bigger fish, and those big fish getting eaten by bigger ones. Person able to bend the largest group of people to their will, wins.

 

Suggests a reason to believe in conspiricy theories, secret societies, and all sorts of groups and individuals out to dupe you.

 

People with 180 IQs only have a handful of people to be cautious of in this regard. I have many many

millions some have hundreds of millions, some others have billions. Half the population of the planet has the other half to worry about in this regard. Sort of handy to imagine being personal friends with the most intelligent being, the biggest fish there is, the master duper, the one that cannot be fooled, the ultimate judge, the one that provides, and takes away even the life of the greatest man (or woman),

 

Perhaps belief in god is not required for some, for purposes of equalization. Perhaps it is required for many for this purpose. And in this regard, it is not a lie, because even the most intelligent among us is mortal and beholding to a greater power. Because even she, can not fool the universe. She can not bend the thing to her will, and she will, one day, submit to its.

 

In this regard, it is not false to consider that we are all created equal, in the eyes of the lord.

 

Regards, TAR2

As you are paranoid if you think you are being followed, unless you are being followed.

So you are delusional if you believe in a creator, unless you have been created.

[iNow]

Well then what is your take away? That religion is the opiate of the masses, inflicted upon them by elites that know better?

 

Erm... I thought the take away was that education and critical / analytical thinking are poisonous to acceptance of religious ideas. Was that unclear somehow?

[ydoaPs]

Erm... I thought the take away was that education and critical / analytical thinking are poisonous to acceptance of religious ideas. Was that unclear somehow?

 

Sometimes I'm not sure how to explain things to him such that he doesn't take them as huge straw men on my actual positions.

[tar]

Gentleman,

 

I don't think I am missing your point.

 

I am exploring the implications of it.

 

If education and critical thinking are poisonous to the acceptance of religious ideas then it would mean that the smartest and the most educated are the least likely to accept religious ideas. The correlary would be that the stupidest and least educated are the most likely to accept religious ideas.

 

Then there becomes the impossible questions of how would an educated and brilliant person be able to transfer their non-acceptance to a person of less intelligence and education, and how would a stupid and uneducated person be able to transfer their acceptance to a person of greater intelligence and education.

 

Your thesis is unworkable. Generally speaking. And opens up some questions of who then is teaching lies and who is teaching truth to the uneducated. And what truth might it be that is available only to the most intelligent and well educated, that is unreachable by everybody else.

 

Plus, I was taking Robitussin at the time of my last post, and my gag reflex may have been artifically comprimised.

 

Regards, TAR2

(meaning, I was unable to choke on my own words, at the time)

[PeterJ]

Well, in my not at all humble opinion it's a lack of education that prevents religion from being understood more widely and causes this idea that religion is the opposite of rational thinking. It's utter bs. What people do is fail to apply any rational thinking to religious issues and then complain that their religious ideas are not rational. Doh. Or they pick on some straw-man like american protestantism, as if defeating such an easy target makes any difference to anything.

 

Sure, many religious people are poorly educated. So, in my opinion, are many professional physicists. Many seem to hold the idiotic idea that rational thinking is somehow in opposition to religion. All this means is that their idea of religion is in opposition to their idea rational thinking. So what?

 

What may be forgotten is that our education system does not teach religion in a rational way. Indeed, it teaches that religion is irrational thinking. Or it does in the UK. It is as if we are free to choose what to believe regardless of any facts. If religion is often irrational this may be a self-fulfilling educational outcome. I will always be annoyed that my very good education taught me nothing whatsoever about religion, just the usual bowdlerised version of Christianity. Luckily I'm a rational;a thinker and got over it.

 

If were going to argue statistics then they show that happiest society on earth is a Buddhist one, and this seems the most important measure of social health. It may be the only one that matters.

Edited January 25, 2013 by PeterJ

[iNow]

If education and critical thinking are poisonous to the acceptance of religious ideas then it would mean that the smartest and the most educated are the least likely to accept religious ideas. The correlary would be that the stupidest and least educated are the most likely to accept religious ideas.

And?

 

 

 

That chart was created more than 6 years ago. How much do you want to bet the trend has become only more pronounced?

[ydoaPs]

Gentleman,

 

I don't think I am missing your point.

 

I am exploring the implications of it.

 

If education and critical thinking are poisonous to the acceptance of religious ideas then it would mean that the smartest and the most educated are the least likely to accept religious ideas. The correlary would be that the stupidest and least educated are the most likely to accept religious ideas.

 

Then there becomes the impossible questions of how would an educated and brilliant person be able to transfer their non-acceptance to a person of less intelligence and education, and how would a stupid and uneducated person be able to transfer their acceptance to a person of greater intelligence and education.

 

Your thesis is unworkable. Generally speaking. And opens up some questions of who then is teaching lies and who is teaching truth to the uneducated. And what truth might it be that is available only to the most intelligent and well educated, that is unreachable by everybody else.

 

Plus, I was taking Robitussin at the time of my last post, and my gag reflex may have been artifically comprimised.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

(meaning, I was unable to choke on my own words, at the time)

Dude. Seriously. Go to a library and get the Nature paper. Your post is still a complete straw man. Tell me, what about education is it that you think I'm saying causes a decline in religious belief?

 

Well, in my not at all humble opinion it's a lack of education that prevents religion from being understood more widely and causes this idea that religion is the opposite of rational thinking. It's utter bs.

The facts disagree with you.

[Prometheus]

And?

 

 

 

That chart was created more than 6 years ago. How much do you want to bet the trend has become only more pronounced?

 

 

Doesn't this chart suggest there wiss something other than education causing this shift? If it were education and only education that decreased people's stock in religion you wouldn't expect there to be such a pronounced trend, you would expect it to remain fairly static? Or maybe it's the type of education itself changing - away from rote towards critical thinking?

 

Edit: Scrap that, i misread the chart.

 

 

If were going to argue statistics then they show that happiest society on earth is a Buddhist one, and this seems the most important measure of social health. It may be the only one that matters.

 

I'd like to see that statistic.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Prometheus

[tar]

And?

 

 

 

That chart was created more than 6 years ago. How much do you want to bet the trend has become only more pronounced?

Which trend are you speaking of. That the recognition of the fairly important nature of religion increases with education?

 

ydoaPs,

 

Don't call me dude. I hate being called Dude. TAR will do. And what if my local town library has not paid its subscription to the repository you would have me access?

 

Regards, TAR

 

if I have to pay to know...that would add another wrinkle to your argument.

And add another aspect to mine. Having a personal god with whom you commune, comes without a charge.

 

And?

 

 

 

That chart was created more than 6 years ago. How much do you want to bet the trend has become only more pronounced?

So would the trends suggest that if one where to poll 100 folks with post post doctorate education about 49 would think religion was very important, 29 would think it somewhat important, and 22 would think it not very important? Still would leave 78 highly trained, intelligent, educated folks believing that religion had some importance.

Edited January 25, 2013 by tar

[ydoaPs]

And what if my local town library has not paid its subscription to the repository you would have me access?

Yeah, it's best not to try or even call then. Good thinking!

[tar]

ydoaPs,

 

No, my thinking was good. If the findings are true, they will remain true, and those truths will reveal themselves in the facts as they are experience by everybody, in the general unfolding of 6.5 billion lives. My knowing of those particular findings is not going to change the facts. Therefore I choose rather, to take a nap.

 

If a peice of information vital to your argument is lacking in your post and links, it is not my fault. I need not search the world for evidence important to your argument. That is your job to present.

 

Regards, The snoozer.

[ydoaPs]

ydoaPs,

 

No, my thinking was good. If the findings are true, they will remain true, and those truths will reveal themselves in the facts as they are experience by everybody, in the general unfolding of 6.5 billion lives. My knowing of those particular findings is not going to change the facts. Therefore I choose rather, to take a nap.

 

If a peice of information vital to your argument is lacking in your post and links, it is not my fault. I need not search the world for evidence important to your argument. That is your job to present.

 

Regards, The snoozer.

I did present. There's a link directly to the paper.

[iNow]

Which trend are you speaking of. That the recognition of the fairly important nature of religion increases with education?

Religion "Fairly Important": Goes up only 5% from HS or less to post graduate

Religion "VERY Important": Goes DOWN 14% from HS or less to post graduate.

Religion "Not Very Important": Goes UP 10% from HS or less to post graduate.

 

Let's see... Not very important up 10%. Very important down 14%. Fairly important up only 5%, which is half of the [not important] increase and a third of the [very important] decrease. That's the trend about which I'm speaking.

[john5746]

We would also expect to see even larger trends with graduates in analytical fields.

[ydoaPs]

We would also expect to see even larger trends with graduates in analytical fields.

Like how 72.8% of Philosophy PhDs are atheists?

 

Also, IIRC, the National Academy of Science is upwards of 90%.

 

edit: I got data. It's a dramatic trend and the data is old. I couldn't find anything current, but based on the trend, there's like 1 theist left in the NAS.

[tar]

Like how 72.8% of Philosophy PhDs are atheists?

 

Also, IIRC, the National Academy of Science is upwards of 90%.

 

edit: I got data. It's a dramatic trend and the data is old. I couldn't find anything current, but based on the trend, there's like 1 theist left in the NAS.

 

 

 

Accept or lean toward: theism

70 / 101 (69.3%)

 

Accept or lean toward: atheism

20 / 101 (19.8%)

 

Other

11 / 101 (10.9%) but if you look at the faculty teaching philosophy of religion, and those holding a PhD in the field you get these results

 

Bottom line, from my perspective is that it is very likely that the more closely you inspect reality, and the more you learn about it, the less likely you are to believe in gods or a god...unless it is the nature of God that you are investigating.

 

and if you would run the same poll at a renown Buddist place of higher learning you might find quite different numbers.

 

So it seems to depend quite strongly on what it is that is being taught in your classes, whether education is a causitive factor in the belief or disbelief in God. As to analytic abilities, and intelligence being a causative factor, I would just retreat to personal experience and anecdotal evidence and refer to my rather bright, mathematically degreed, teacher, deceased, Jesus loving, Mom.

 

But I will agree, that education very strongly tends to dismiss false gods from ones thinking.

 

And agree that the more intelligent you are, the less likely it is that you will believe in the god or gods, prepared for mass consumption, by the priests of religion.

 

Still leaves the god of Einstein and PeterJ, TAR and atheists like me, to consider.

 

and consider that super intelligent people, often are seen by the rest of the world, as being a bit bonkers

 

(I was not implying I am any where close to super intelligent, I am just a bit down the right hand slope of the distribution. I am viewed as being just a bit bonkers, with no excuse)

[john5746]

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/28/majors

 

findings from a study that looks at trends between study of certain subjects and religious observance

 

Humanities and social science majors had a significant loss in religious attendance and importance over their college career

 

Education and Business majors had an increase

 

Biological and Physical Science had no change in attendance but did lose religious importance.

 

 

"Our results are thus consistent with the overall theoretical framework guiding this research. We believe that there are important differences among the college majors in world views and overall philosophies of life....," they write. "[O]ur results suggest that postmodernism, rather than science, is the bête noir -- the strongest antagonist -- of religiosity."