Does education ‘cure’ people of faith? The data says no

[webmdave]

(RNS) — Despite a long-standing biased assumption among many that the uneducated cling to religion, studies show people with higher degrees are most likely to be religious.

The post Does education ‘cure’ people of faith? The data says no appeared first on Religion News Service.

View the full article

[older]

I must be missing something. The fourth graf reads:

 

Even a cursory look at recent data reveals that just the opposite is true: Those who are the most likely to be religiously unaffiliated are those with the lowest levels of formal education. The group that is the most likely to align with a faith tradition? Those who have earned a college degree or more.

 

But the graphic that follows shows that there are more non believers as the education level goes up and that the number of firm believers is less. Do I mis-read this?

[freshstart]

So the graph (posted by "Religion News Service") clearly shows that the more education you have the less you believe.  Yet they state:

 

Even a cursory look at recent data reveals that just the opposite is true: Those who are the most likely to be religiously unaffiliated are those with the lowest levels of formal education. The group that is the most likely to align with a faith tradition? Those who have earned a college degree or more.

 

Clearly, they only took a cursory look!! 

[freshstart]

But then there's this:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/04/26/in-america-does-more-education-equal-less-religion/

[nontheistpilgrim]

Then there is the anecdotal evidence that fundamentalists accuse those of us who turned atheist as starting to go dowhill when we went to university. I've heard it so many times. For years I told my fundy friends that it wasn't true in my case. But then I realised that  higher education (late in life) actually made me a thinker, so I suppose they are partly right. They say I backslid: for me I took a major step forward.

[older]

11 hours ago, nontheistpilgrim said:

Then there is the anecdotal evidence that fundamentalists accuse those of us who turned atheist as starting to go dowhill when we went to university. I've heard it so many times. For years I told my fundy friends that it wasn't true in my case. But then I realised that  higher education (late in life) actually made me a thinker, so I suppose they are partly right. They say I backslid: for me I took a major step forward.

 

Ditto. I went downhill as a young teen (in more ways than one ).

 

The original source, Religion News Service, obviously has a bias (and an inability to see the data in the graphic), but, having been a journalist, I trust the Pew surveys. But any survey — even Pew — needs to be read carefully as it is easy to misinterpret data. (And as the saying goes, "figures don't lie but liars can figure.")

 

I think the next question would be the subject matter studied by those with higher education. Does the educated religious group include scientists, philosophers, artists, mathematicians, musicians, medical professionals? What is the relationship between the subject field studied and the involvement in religion? Are philosophers more inclined to believe or not believe than scientists or concert pianists? 

 

And another variation on the question is whether those who are religious tend to seek or not seek advanced degrees more or less than those who do not follow a religion. Are those who are already heavily religious more likely to study philosophy over business management or microbiology?

 

Here's your next dissertation topic!

[pantheory]

Does education ‘cure’ people of faith? The data says no

 

Hey Dave! What's up?

 

Education is a great tool to explain the best that mankind knows of the world. It explains the evolution of life, and promotes hypothesis concerning the possible origins of life so people don't have to rely on religion for their explanations and understanding of the world. Yet,  about half of the scientists of the world are either religious or spiritual, according to surveys. Like religion, education is a form of indoctrination. According to my own experiences of high school, college, university, etc. most of education is based upon  learning so-called facts, and much less time is spent upon teaching fundamental understandings of the subject.

 

For instance, I taught mathematics to college level students. What most of them had learned before was the equations and mechanics of how manual calculations are done. Few had a good insight into fundamental concepts that require no education, such as dividing a pie into 3 equal pieces, 5 equal pieces, seven equal pieces, etc. Some people do not have to be taught, but the majority can learn these concepts. This I have found, can be found for any subject of education. Facts are taught much more than fundamental concepts of understanding. 

 

Based upon family tradition and what your parents and family might think of them keeps many scientists still juggling with the ideas of God and religion, often with self invented ideas.  And if it effects scientists this way, it would be much more difficult for everyone else to escape religion via logic. Another problem is that scientists and theory can sometimes be proven wrong and theories have to change. This could drive many people on the fence back to religion, and some believing in science could look back toward religion.

 

What is the answer? Better education IMHO where basic understandings of reality require insight and perspective understandings of a subject, called the "gray world" -- not just the black and white worlds taught by religion and the pseudo-understandings and beliefs taught today by education. The problem also is that many teachers also don't understand these concepts either IMO. If it were easy and had proven results,  it would have been realized and taught long ago

 

[older]

9 hours ago, pantheory said:

Does education ‘cure’ people of faith? The data says no

 

Hey Dave! What's up?

 

Education is a great tool to explain the best that mankind knows of the world. It explains the evolution of life, and promotes hypothesis concerning the possible origins of life so people don't have to rely on religion for their explanations and understanding of the world. Yet,  about half of the scientists of the world are either religious or spiritual, according to surveys. Like religion, education is a form of indoctrination. According to my own experiences of high school, college, university, etc. most of education is based upon  learning so-called facts, and much less time is spent upon teaching fundamental understandings of the subject.

 

For instance, I taught mathematics to college level students. What most of them had learned before was the equations and mechanics of how manual calculations are done. Few had a good insight into fundamental concepts that require no education, such as dividing a pie into 3 equal pieces, 5 equal pieces, seven equal pieces, etc. Some people do not have to be taught, but the majority can learn these concepts. This I have found, can be found for any subject of education. Facts are taught much more than fundamental concepts of understanding. 

 

Based upon family tradition and what your parents and family might think of them keeps many scientists still juggling with the ideas of God and religion, often with self invented ideas.  And if it effects scientists this way, it would be much more difficult for everyone else to escape religion via logic. Another problem is that scientists and theory can sometimes be proven wrong and theories have to change. This could drive many people on the fence back to religion, and some believing in science could look back toward religion.

 

What is the answer? Better education IMHO where basic understandings of reality require insight and perspective understandings of a subject, called the "gray world" -- not just the black and white worlds taught by religion and the pseudo-understandings and beliefs taught today by education. The problem also is that many teachers also don't understand these concepts either IMO. If it were easy and had proven results,  it would have been realized and taught long ago

 

Pantheory, there is a lot in what you write. I have sometimes thought that what education does is teach people how to read books and pass tests on them. As you pointed out, learning the fundamental concepts are left behind (perhaps because such skills can't be tested?). How many allegedly educated people choke when faced with a problem they haven't encountered before? It would seem to me that such folks would find it comforting, then, to reach to religion rather than to live with a question for which they have no answer.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, older said:

Pantheory, there is a lot in what you write. I have sometimes thought that what education does is teach people how to read books and pass tests on them. As you pointed out, learning the fundamental concepts are left behind (perhaps because such skills can't be tested?). How many allegedly educated people choke when faced with a problem they haven't encountered before? It would seem to me that such folks would find it comforting, then, to reach to religion rather than to live with a question for which they have no answer.

And it depends on how you define "education".  Vocational education and rote learning does not teach critical thinking about human/social/religious concerns.  And the USA is getting further away from liberal education that teaches critical thinking.  Autocrats do not like critical thinking.

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, older said:

Pantheory, there is a lot in what you write. I have sometimes thought that what education does is teach people how to read books and pass tests on them. As you pointed out, learning the fundamental concepts are left behind (perhaps because such skills can't be tested?). How many allegedly educated people choke when faced with a problem they haven't encountered before? It would seem to me that such folks would find it comforting, then, to reach to religion rather than to live with a question for which they have no answer.

Could be sir

[pantheory]

3 hours ago, Weezer said:

And it depends on how you define "education".  Vocational education and rote learning does not teach critical thinking about human/social/religious concerns.  And the USA is getting further away from liberal education that teaches critical thinking.  Autocrats do not like critical thinking.

 

Yeah, I'm not to fond of what is being taught in schools around the world today. Not that it was that much better in the past IMO.

[nontheistpilgrim]

In 1955 I failed formal examinations at the end of my school life.

By the 1980's education theory had changed dramatically, I thought. I signed up for a degree in Independent Study where I was encourged and helped to research (yes research, under my own control for an undergraduate degree) the links between body movement and music in charismatic congregations. This led to a doctorate where I undertook covert research to discover the incidence of empowerment and enfeeblement in charismatic congregations.

Am I naive in believng that education in UK these days is still based on giving children and adults the tools to discover stuff for themselves? I hope not as this method of learning works for me and many others, I uderstand.

I actually am under the impression that this is 'old hat' and would be horrified to find that things have returned to 'teacher at the front, obedient compliant student at their desk'.

Perhaps things are different on the other side of the pond?