sr@u1100a.UUCP (11/11/83)
I'm not sure that a discussion of an individual's impression that educated people tend to be less religious belongs in this group. I'm not sure that it belongs in net.religion, since contributors to that group are likely to have strong opinions about religion and may not be objective ( here I assume that they would all regard themselves as intelligent ). I considered calling my sister, who is a PhD candidate in theology at Boston College for her opinions on the subject, but I decided that there was some charity in sparing her exposure to that opinion. I recalled the individuals who took their time to deal with my ignorance when I attended Catholic high school, and wondered if they could present any statistics to show that they had succeeded in inculcating any knowledge in their students ( one statistic that does stick in my mind is that 100% of the 181 students in my graduating class went to college ). Net.flame wasn't what I wanted either, since I didn't feel anger as much as pity. It is narrow exposure that leads to such badly informed generalization. The intelligent, broad-minded, religious individual may not be common in our society, but on the other hand there is no cause and effect relationship which causes critical thinking to decline as adherence to religion increases. The burden of proof rests with that person who chooses to propose such a hypothesis.
jtb@phs.UUCP (11/13/83)
I feel that I need to respond to the person who posted an annomous not quite flame about my query about education and religion. I agree that this does not seem to be the right newsgroup but I also agree that net.religion is not the right group either in any case I unsubscribed to net.religion because I coulden't stand the bigotery but that is another story. Re the posting Re my posting I resent being pityed and called narrow for asking about other peoples opinions. What I said was that in the sample of people I have been exposed to the most devout ones were generaly the less educated. This is a statement of fact as for as the subset of people I know is conserned I did not hypothesize that this was true in general I asked what other people had found. As far as the success of products of catholic grade schools goes I will state the further observation that those graduates whom I have met have either broken from the church or are book learned but conventional thinkers. Does anybody have any comments on this? Jose Torre-Bueno decvax!duke!phs!jtb
trb@masscomp.UUCP (Andy Tannenbaum) (11/14/83)
The ARROGANCE of some people amazes me. Are highly educated people less religious than normal people? The implication is of this question is that perhaps it isn't too smart to be religious. What do you mean by educated? A PhD in Computer Science from one of the hotbeds? I wouldn't call such a degree evidence of the well rounded education of a renaissance man. I'm pretty familiar with "religious" Jews. Some of these people investigate Jewish law as there vocation or primary avocation, much as many of us hack computers. Their position is not unlike that of the researcher: There are some competent ones, there are some incompetent ones. There are rabbis whose insights and whose abilities to share their knowledge are so brilliant as to blow you away! Much like CS. And yes, there are also learned Jews who are arrogant, who turn up their noses at anyone who isn't like they are. Just like the person who asked the leading question about whether highly educated people are less religious than normal people. Belief in God isn't based on understanding, it's based on faith. Likewise, there is no understanding the creation of the universe, that's also based on faith. The bible viewpoint is no better than the scientific viewpoint, and it's no less valid. It's all based on faith. I find it just as odd to hear a scientist tell me that the world is a few billion years old as it is to hear a rabbi tell me that the world is 5744 years old, if not more so. The scientist is trying to represent the truth, the rabbi is trying to tell me that this is what faith has him believe. Andy Tannenbaum Masscomp Inc Westford MA (617) 692-6200 x274
labelle@hplabsc.UUCP (WB6YZZ) (11/15/83)
>"Belief in god isn't based on understanding, it's based on faith. Likewise > there is no understanding the creation of the universe, that's also based > on faith" Andy Tannenbaum Holy moly! That's exactly what I meant when I said religious faith atro- phied the mind! Since when is there no understanding the creation of the universe? Where have you been? Let's open our minds and try to find out what is really going on here; by collecting the facts and putting them in order. With this "understanding" and some mental gymnastics maybe we can find the real answers. So far as I know, the computer was not discovered with faith! Neither was modern medicine. Ever heard of Spontaneous Generation? Thats where people thought maggots came from- until they found out otherwise with a microscope, which also was not a product of faith- but of human inginuity!! GEORGE LA BELLE
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (11/18/83)
Ahem, (Andy, will you let me get in for a bit?) In case you don't know, Rabbis do not wake up one morning and say that "the world is X thousand years old" because God told me this in a dream last night. It is an awful lot of *scholarly work*. They take a given set of postulates as true, and then work out what is the logical outcome of that. This sounds like science, right? No? But there are given scientific postulates that work that way. For instance, the notion of repeatability. If X implies Y today, then X is going to imply Y tomorrow and the day after as well. This is rather basic, and you had better agree to that one, or otherwise you are going to have to keep doing every scientific experiment that ever was to see if it is "still true" (ie still works). There are other ones as well. An article or event has significant bearing on another iff the second varies when the first is and is not present. Thus in throwing a ball out of a window, whether or not the ball is full of helium has an effect on whether and how fast it will fall. What I had for breakfast, should not be considered significant. And there are a lot more of these. So now we get back to Andy and his awe. First of all, it is necessary to remember that although science tries to model the external world that is visible through our perceptions (and understandable through our intellect) there is no guarantee that the relgions are trying to do the same thing. Spiritual realities need not correspond to physical realities. Some people try to claim that they refer to the same reality (as in when a Creation Scientist tries to prove scientifically that the Flood occurred) but a lot of people do not. (Note that this implies that there are other realities beyond that which one can experience with the senses and/or understand with the intellect. I don't know of a single religious person who does not believe this <though I expect to get 100 letters from them this week after posting this article.>) For those of you who are uncomfortable with the idea of "more than one reality", remember that it is now common to speak of 'psychological realities', which share similar properties. Okay. Given the plurality of realities, then it is not necessary to conclude that either the scientists or the Rabbis are lying. So now you are left with "Why are you impressed by the scientists and the Rabbis?" It is not that the world which they are describing is impressive, although it is, for strawberries would still be wonderful things if there were no Rabbis, and understanding the biochemistry of them does not improve their taste. So it is not the world that is impressive, but the intense human effort and labour which went into constructing the theory which models the world and makes it intelligible for those of us who did not compose the model. Rabbis and scientists are awesome because they think, and because of the effort that went into their models, and indeed because the models themselves have beauty. it is only those who are constitutionally unable to accept the notion of multiple realities who do not see this. I am trying, but i do not know whether I am getting through to them. This is for them: Look, this does not mean that having been impressed by Rabbis you abandon science. it does not mean that the religions themselves are all clamouring for people to abandon science, either. you get to throw out whatever models you do not find useful under this theory. it does not mean that you are forced to find a truth in every theory, though it would be courteous to remember that *somebody* believes that he has. And yes, some people reject science. I find this sad. But perhaps they are unable to perceive physical realities and only spiritual ones. If this is the case, then science needs to teach itself better to these individuals. laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura