Philosophy of life, thereal version

[thereal]

Nope, I strongly believe it has to do more with atheists, like you, than believers. And what is with your Jon Stewart avatar, are you a wannabe of him? Dude, just leave, you came here for no-purpose but to once again like prior people, claim you know it all.

I guess that's your right to believe whatever you want about the sources of drinking, shooting, and bad stuff...sounds ridiculous to me. In all honesty, I first came to this site to try and see how religion explains many things that can't seem to be explained based on observeable data...such questions as "How could all animals fit on the ark when the mass of every species seen today (not including extinct species) couldn't even fit" and "Why aren't religious organizations more devoted to environmental causes?" I guess on some of these topics I was looking for answers from a religious perspective that also followed the guidelines of science (the debate on populations studies suggesting a flood is more of what I was looking for). However, it quickly became apparent to me that most people (not all) posting on this site have little scientific background, such that there arguments can be easily diffused with knowledge that most people with a B.S. in biology have. The thing that concerns me the most, and probably what fuels me to keep posting, is that I see so much misinformation being distributed (not even concerning evolution, but simple basic science) on this site that I worry that that's what being taught to the people you are responsible for. Statements that I have seen on this site, such as "cats and dogs are the same now as the ever were, snakes are the only creatures that crawl on their bellies, snakes and legless lizards are the same morphologically" may not mean much to you, but these are observably untrue. As I am in a university to ultimately become a science educator, it's disturbing to see so many people blatantly throw out some statement that they obviously didn't research. Before I even posted my first post, I spent a lot of time reading past threads where anti-evolutionists talked amongst themselves, and the amount of misinformation on basic scientific concepts was ridiculous. I've also learned how many people that believe in something get disturbingly agitated if someone else questions there beliefs, as if it should not even be done. I have no problem with someone questioning why I believe in what I do, yet I see so many who are quick to fly off the handle whe they are questioned. I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right or they're wrong, I simply wanted to hear arguments for alternate opinions that were scientifically valid.

[Believer]

Well, you could have opened SPECIFIC threads on the topics you wanted to learn about and get help there, but what point would that make if you are already against religion? Teach the Bible as mythology?

If we aren't "scientific" enough for you, why did you join a Christian forum? I mean, you are in a university hearing lectures from "professors" that have a biased and opinionated view of what THEY think should be taught. It goes from there, students get taught that, and if they become "professors" themselves in the future, they will probably keep in mind what their "professor" taught them. By they way, do you NOT agree that certain scientific fields have caused people to turn away from religion?

And yes, I do believe atheists have a higher tendency to not care and be as moral as people with the faith in God.

[Ark~Magic]

Just shut the [love] up and wait for someone smarter to reply to this thread. [love], BRIAN, all you do is [love] *****. [poop] you too, thereal.

[thereal]

If we aren't "scientific" enough for you, why did you join a Christian forum? I mean, you are in a university hearing lectures from "professors" that have a biased and opinionated view of what THEY think should be taught. It goes from there, students get taught that, and if they become "professors" themselves in the future, they will probably keep in mind what their "professor" taught them. By they way, do you NOT agree that certain scientific fields have caused people to turn away from religion?

I assumed the title of the specific forum I was interested in (God and Science) implied science would be used in explanations of the Bible...it is in some threads, whereas other discussions turn into what I tried to avoid in other web forums...mainly, a situation of "this is real or true because I feel it" which doesn't provide for a very analytical debate. As far as college professors are concerned, of course everyone has their idea of what is real or true, but a good student should take that information with a grain of salt and make up their own mind on any decision based on the information they take in. I don't know what led to this in my own upbringing, but even as a kid learning of the events described in Genesis, I found myself not simply saying "It must have happened this way because everyone says so" but rather asking what support there was for either this idea or any other. The idea that all these things happened by miracles wasn't enough to satisfy me...I needed to know how, but no answers aside from "it was a miracle" were provided. The situation you pose of a student becoming a teacher and keeping in mind opinions/biases they were taught (and possibly teaching exactly what they were taught) only happens when people cannot think for themselves or do not question what they have been taught. Regarding your last comment...I can honestly say that I know of no science field (including evolution) that actively takes any stance on religion in the classroom...science does, however, provide information that, while it is not the intent, may make people question their faith. Whether or not people ultimately turn away from a religion due to what thay have learned in a science class is not the responsibility of science, as science and religion are two separate categories.

But I do have an honest question for you on a related note. Why do you think it is that the amount of higher education a person recieves is positively correlated with an increased chance of not practicing a religion, even if that person is not in a "science" field?

[Ark~Magic]

[this post has been edited for excessive profanity]

[Mystical]

...the bible is a good teaching tool...if the message boils down to "how to be a good person" and it actually works.

Christianity is not about how to be a good person, it's about how we can never be good.

P.S.

Noah didn't put every single living thing on the ark.

I don't know why more Christians aren't interested in environmental causes/animal rights. It is an issue which has perplexed me since becoming Christian. I think it's because God gave us dominion over the earth and other living things. However, know that the bible does not condone destruction of the environment or mistreatment of animals--just the opposite. Another reason why I think is because people have a tendency towards evil and sin. This means that they are slaves to harming others. After becoming Christian, many people want an outlet for these emotions and no longer find themselves able to deal with the guilt of hurting other people. So, they turn their negativity on the environment or animals, wrongly believing that God doesn't care about these things. Finally, I think that some Christians want to justify their specialness in God's eyes. They need to separate themselves from other living things as if to say, "I'm superior to you." For many, I guess it's not enough that God said we were special.

[Ark~Magic]

Christianity is not about how to be a good person, it's about how we can never be good.

Or rather not 'good' enough.

[August]

But I do have an honest question for you on a related note. Why do you think it is that the amount of higher education a person recieves is positively correlated with an increased chance of not practicing a religion, even if that person is not in a "science" field?

Really? Any evidence for that?

[thereal]

Really? Any evidence for that?

I'm still working on finding the citation for the specific article I have in mind, but more than one exists; I have the article abstract but not the actual article, but I'm working on it. In the meantime, so you don't think I'm trying to dodge the question, here is some info that is somewhat relevant. I know IQ is not equivalent to years of education, but I thought this would be useful:

"And while we're at it, we might as well look at intelligence and religiosity, since conservatism and religiosity are also strongly correlated. In the Spring 1986 edition of Free Inquiry, Burnham Beckwith compiled a list of studies examining IQ and strength of religious attitudes. No less than 13 studies found that students with higher IQ's and academic test scores tend to be less religious. Studies of high-IQ organizations, like Mensa, show that religious people are seriously underrepresented. And no less than seven studies show that America's top scientists tend to be much less religious than average."

This is from http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/liberalism/3950, and before people jump on me about using a website, I'm merely using this article to reference the studies highlighted. I have looked at some of the abstracts for the aforementioned studies, but I have not yet checked to see if the actual articles are available in my library. If anyone gets their hands on the actual articles before I can track them down, let me know.

[thereal]

I was also able to find summaries of the studies cited in that edition of Free Inquiry if anyone is interested (DISCLAIMER - from a website...so CHECK THE ACTUAL STUDIES IF YOU ARE SKEPTICAL!!!)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm

STUDIES OF STUDENTS

1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward… atheism."

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"

5. Vernon Jones, 1938
Tested 381 students, concluding "a slight tendency for intelligence and liberal attitudes to go together."

6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

10. Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
Found no correlation between intelligence and grades. This was an anomalous finding, since GPA corresponds closely with intelligence. Other factors may have influenced the results at the University of Wisconsin.

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022).

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."

STUDENT BODY COMPARISONS

1. Rose Goldsen, 1952
Percentage of students who believe in a divine god: Harvard 30; UCLA 32; Dartmouth 35; Yale 36; Cornell 42; Wayne 43; Weslyan 43; Michigan 45; Fisk 60; Texas 62; North Carolina 68.

2. National Review Study, 1970
Percentage of students who believe in a Spirit or Divine God: Reed 15; Brandeis 25; Sarah Lawrence 28; Williams 36; Stanford 41; Boston U. 41; Yale 42; Howard 47; Indiana 57; Davidson 59; S. Carolina 65; Marquette 77.

3. Caplovitz and Sherrow, 1977
Apostasy rates rose continuously from 5 percent in "low" ranked schools to 17 percent in "high" ranked schools.

4. Niemi, Ross, and Alexander, 1978
In elite schools, organized religion was judged important by only 26 percent of their students, compared with 44 percent of all students.

STUDIES OF VERY-HIGH IQ GROUPS

1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

2. Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.

3. Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.

STUDIES Of SCIENTISTS

1. William S. Ament, 1927
C. C. Little, president of the University of Michigan, checked persons listed in Who's Who in America: "Unitarians, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Universalists, and Presbyterians [who are less religious] are… far more numerous in Who's Who than would be expected on the basis of the population which they form. Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics are distinctly less numerous."

Ament confirmed Little's conclusion. He noted that Unitarians, the least religious, were more than 40 times as numerous in Who's Who as in the U.S. population.

2. Lehman and Witty, 1931
Identified 1189 scientists found in both Who's Who (1927) and American Men of Science (1927). Only 25 percent of those listed in the latter and 50 percent of those in the former reported their religious denomination, despite the specific request to do so, under the heading of "religious denomination (if any)." Well over 90 percent of the general population claims religious affiliation. The figure of 25 percent suggests far less religiosity among scientists.

Unitarians were 81.4 times as numerous among eminent scientists as non-Unitarians.

3. Kelley and Fisk, 1951
Found a negative (-.39) correlation between the strength of religious values and research competence. [How these were measured is unknown.]

4. Ann Roe, 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend… All the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their lives… A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"

5. Francis Bello, 1954
Interviewed or questionnaired 107 nonindustrial scientists under the age of 40 judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding. Of the 87 responses, 45 percent claimed to be "agnostic or atheistic" and an additional 22 percent claimed no religious affiliation. For 20 most eminent, "the proportion who are now a-religious is considerably higher than in the entire survey group."

6. Jack Chambers, 1964
Questionnaired 740 US psychologists and chemists. He reported, "The highly creative men… significantly more often show either no preference for a particular religion or little or no interest in religion." Found that the most eminent psychologists showed 40 percent no preference, 16 percent for the most eminent chemists.

7. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965
Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science (1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5 percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S. population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than the typical adult.

Conclusion

The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion. And this observation is given added force when you consider that the above studies span a broad range of time, subjects and methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion.

This is the result even when the researchers are Christian conservatives themselves. One such researcher is George Gallup. Here are the results of a Fall 1995 Gallup poll:

Percentage of respondents who agreed with the following statements:

Religion is Religion can
"very important "answer all or most
Respondents in their life" of today's problems"
------------------------------------------------------------
Attended college 53 percent 58 percent
No college 63 65

Income over $50,000 48 56
$30,000 - $50,000 56 62
$20,000 - $30,000 56 60
Under $20,000 66 66

[Mystical]

My IQ is over 140 and I believe in God. My husband's IQ is over 160 and he believes in God. I don't think that matters. It definately does not mean that non-believers are smarter than believers.

In answer to your question:

Why do you think it is that the amount of higher education a person receives is positively correlated with an increased chance of not practicing a religion, even if that person is not in a "science" field?

Because the smarter a person is, the less they need other people, and the less they feel they need God. The smarter you are the more likely you will develop pride in your own accomplishments and abilities--mistakenly coming to believe you are all capable.

That's why the bible teaches that the humble and meek shall inheret the earth, and that "knowledge puffs up."

[Believer]

My IQ is over 140 and I believe in God. My husband's IQ is over 160 and he believes in God. I don't think that matters. It definately does not mean that non-believers are smarter than believers.

In answer to your question:

Why do you think it is that the amount of higher education a person receives is positively correlated with an increased chance of not practicing a religion, even if that person is not in a "science" field?

Because the smarter a person is, the less they need other people, and the less they feel they need God. The smarter you are the more likely you will develop pride in your own accomplishments and abilities--mistakenly coming to believe you are all capable.

That's why the bible teaches that the humble and meek shall inheret the earth, and that "knowledge puffs up."

So very true Mystical. In a world of polls, where not every person is polled, these polls can be very off, despite those conducting them claim they aren't by much. How does one loose interest in religion going to school if they are PROPERLY educated about it? It is true as Mystical said, the smarter a person is, the less they have a need for God.

[Jbuza]

Why do you think it is that the amount of higher education a person recieves is positively correlated with an increased chance of not practicing a religion, even if that person is not in a "science" field?



Pauls first letter to the Cornithians
For ye see your calling bretheren how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. And base things of the world and things which are despised hath God chosen yea and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are; That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus who if God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.

Jude
But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

Titus
A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth being condemned of himself.

[Believer]

There are MANY graduates from college that maintain their God beliefs. I believe it has to do with the secularism subtly put into classes that make people doubt and therefore turn from religion in these ages.

[Jbuza]

There are MANY graduates from college that maintain their God beliefs. I believe it has to do with the secularism subtly put into classes that make people doubt and therefore turn from religion in these ages.

And that, Believer, is a wonder.

The Bible says that False teachings will come, and what better place to find teachings than in a school, and if it were possible cause the very elect to loose the truth.