College Grads = Religious Dropouts?

[Gravy]

Young adults in the U.S. who are religious tend to become less religious after graduating from college, compared to those who didn't attend college.

I would have bet a fair amount of money that this was so, and I would have lost, according to a new study (http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/14/religion).


“Actually we’ve just been wrong about this for quite a while,” said Mark D. Regnerus, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the authors of a new study that suggests students who attend and graduate from college are more likely than others to hold on to their faith.


Is anyone else surprised to hear this? And are any other atheists, like me, disappointed? :D

[TobiasTheViking]

afaik there have been two other studies that show the same.. whereas there have been 20+ saying the opposite...

Lets wait and see if this stands up to scrutiny.

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

In my opinion, almost all " religious folk " are dropouts.

I have yet to meet a religious grad !

In my younger days, we used to cross the street from school and tend church once a week as part of the school program. With this having been on the go for quite some time, I began to see church attendance as one of the regular classes. With this in mind it also became clear that eventually I would complete the course and graduate.

From that point onwards I have always pictured those who continue to return to church week after week after week, as those who have basically kept on failing the class.

[latent aaaack]

What's more shocking is the 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution)
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2097

"
According to a 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) Gallup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup) poll,[108] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#_note-timespoll) about 46% of Americans believe in strict creationism, concurring with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," and 36% believe that God guided the process of evolution. Only 13% believe that humans evolved over millions of years, without any supernatural intervention. Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, only 22% believe in strict creationism.[108] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#_note-timespoll)A poll in the year 2000 done for People for the American Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_American_Way) found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[109] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#_note-pfaw)"

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

What is creation ?

Is it not a sequence of events ?

[ReligionStudent]

I think this depends too on what they study. i happen to know a lot of people who were religisious grads. However, I got a BA and MA in religion.

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

I think this depends too on what they study. i happen to know a lot of people who were religisious grads. However, I got a BA and MA in religion.

Do you still go to church ?

[l0rca]

Minister of Truth, when you end a sentence with a question mark, you put the question mark right next to the last letter. Like this:

See?

[Fronzel]

I didn't go to college and turned out atheist.

[ImaginalDisc]

Young adults in the U.S. who are religious tend to become less religious after graduating from college, compared to those who didn't attend college.

I would have bet a fair amount of money that this was so, and I would have lost, according to a new study (http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/14/religion).




Is anyone else surprised to hear this? And are any other atheists, like me, disappointed? :D

Let me guess, did they include people with "degrees" in religious subjects?

Oh, yes. Yes it did include data from religious "colleges."

More broadly, so many students are in pre-professional programs, Regnerus said, that they are focused on practical matters much more than on wondering whether God exists. As a Christian who earned his undergraduate degree at Trinity Christian College, Regnerus said he spent a lot of time talking about philosophical issues in college, but that’s not the norm for many undergrads these days. (Christian colleges in recent years have experienced a boom, in part from students who don’t want to become secular, or whose parents don’t want them to become secular, and Regnerus said his study doesn’t contradict that belief. Because there is a decline in religious connection during the college years — looking at religious and secular institutions together — those at religious colleges are less likely to experience that decline.)

[Ducky]

hmm. I'd be willing to bet you could meta-study your way into supporting evidence of anything.

[supercorgi]

What's more shocking is the 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution)
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2097

"
According to a 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) Gallup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup) poll,[108] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#_note-timespoll) about 46% of Americans believe in strict creationism, concurring with the statement that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," and 36% believe that God guided the process of evolution. Only 13% believe that humans evolved over millions of years, without any supernatural intervention. Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, only 22% believe in strict creationism.[108] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#_note-timespoll)A poll in the year 2000 done for People for the American Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_American_Way) found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[109] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#_note-pfaw)"

You know stats like these really make me wonder where in the U.S. these polls took place. I live in New England and almost no one up here believes in creationism particularly the literal biblical type.

[latent aaaack]

I've always viewed it as one of the great ancient historical tragedies that other branches of the hominid line went extinct. Aside from all the other reasons, it would be great to still have them around because you could literally hold them (if they're ok with it) up to creationists and say "what is this? why did God do this if there's no such thing as evolution and if humans are so specially separate from the natural world?" It would be a kind of physical proof that's more freindly to the scientifically illiterate then mere data and theories. And it would take away the 'I'm not descended from monkies' arguement because they'd see how intelligent and a kin to homo sapien other branches of the human line were. Conspiracy theory: Maybe that's one reason Neanderthals were forced into extinction, it was like an early version of Gallileo being persecuted and silenced, in that it threatened peoples' homo sapien-centered religious beliefs.

[Madalch]

Conspiracy theory: Maybe that's one reason Neanderthals were forced into extinction, it was like an early version of Gallileo being persecuted and silenced, in that it threatened peoples' homo sapien-centered religious beliefs.
I'm sure that if homo sapiens forced Neanderthals into extinction, I'm sure it was simply because they were competition. Neanderthals would have been seen as not being part of "our tribe", and therefore something to eat, enslave, or eliminate.

[Meri]

I'm sure that if homo sapiens forced Neanderthals into extinction, I'm sure it was simply because they were competition. Neanderthals would have been seen as not being part of "our tribe", and therefore something to eat, enslave, or eliminate.

Besides, if you want a hominid to hold up to creationists, you'd be better off with the hobbits (Homo floresiensis). Much easier to lift.

And on the main topic, I remember seeing a study a year or so ago that showed that whether or not a college graduate loses their faith depends heavily on the religious affiliation of the college. I think it showed secular schools, catholic, mainstream protestant, and fundamentalist, and maybe some others. I'll see if I can find it, but I remember the secular and catholic schools had a much higher rate of loss of faith than the others.

[ReligionStudent]

Do you still go to church ?

I am an atheist, what does that have to do with anything though?

[l0rca]

I am an atheist, what does that have to do with anything though?

What did you get your major for, and what do you use it for now?

[bjornart]

I've always viewed it as one of the great ancient historical tragedies that other branches of the hominid line went extinct. Aside from all the other reasons, it would be great to still have them around because you could literally hold them (if they're ok with it) up to creationists and say "what is this? why did God do this if there's no such thing as evolution and if humans are so specially separate from the natural world?" It would be a kind of physical proof that's more freindly to the scientifically illiterate then mere data and theories. And it would take away the 'I'm not descended from monkies' arguement because they'd see how intelligent and a kin to homo sapien other branches of the human line were. Conspiracy theory: Maybe that's one reason Neanderthals were forced into extinction, it was like an early version of Gallileo being persecuted and silenced, in that it threatened peoples' homo sapien-centered religious beliefs.
I can't really see why they wouldn't have been treated as any other not-us tribe/ethnicity. They'd be the decendants of Cain/Lillith, or proof of god's vengeance against someone or other for something or other.

We already have other members of our line of primates sharing 98% of our DNA, another couple of tenths of a percent would be no challenge to the non-scientific.

[ReligionStudent]

What did you get your major for, and what do you use it for now?

I study religion, specifically ancient Yahwist religion in cultural context. Currently I am still in school getting my training in archaeology to go with my religion degreees. (Also, when I was origionally studying religion and got a BA, I was actually a computer science/math student, but my college required a minor or second major in a humanities subject. I origionally started out minoring in religion because I was interested in it, but liked it enough to pick it up as a second major)

[blutoski]

Young adults in the U.S. who are religious tend to become less religious after graduating from college, compared to those who didn't attend college.

I would have bet a fair amount of money that this was so, and I would have lost, according to a new study (http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/14/religion).

Is anyone else surprised to hear this? And are any other atheists, like me, disappointed? :D

This is consistent with previous surveys. Shermer's How We Believe reviews the relevant Gallup polls, and he actually conducted his own surveys that confirm a positive relationship between education and religiosity. There is also a positive relationship between education and belief in the paranormal.

Thomas Gilovich's How We Know What Isn't So independently reviews the literature and came to the same conclusion.

My concern is that atheists would actually believe otherwise: this is just ordinary bigotry. Decent people would consider the assumption that opposing views are proof of ignorance to be a character flaw, but somehow many atheists excuse themselves from this ethical rule.


Gilovitch and Shermer have similar interpretations: that education exposes people to more ideas, so we should not be surprised to discover that somebody going into a college with little or no religious belief could come out with a full set of new or stronger beliefs. Shermer further points out that education gives people the argument skills and facts required to defend or consolidate the views they may not have been able to justify previously.



My personal interpretation of this (I'm a broken record) is that I have never believed that critical thinking skills are the same as skepticism. I believe that the research supports my claim that "Teaching critical thinking skills is not going to make people less vulnerable to investment scams, healthfraud, or false claims of the paranomal."



One further thing: Shermer also uncovered a relevant exception to the positive correlation between education and belief in the paranormal. Science graduate degree holders (M.Sc., PhD) are strongly negatively correlated with these beliefs. He points out that the National Academy of Science is mostly composed of atheists and a few agnostics, with a tiny percentage expressing religious belief at all. Harris also discusses this in The End of Faith.

[blutoski]

Conspiracy theory: Maybe that's one reason Neanderthals were forced into extinction, it was like an early version of Gallileo being persecuted and silenced, in that it threatened peoples' homo sapien-centered religious beliefs.

Problem with that theory: neadertals are regarded as the same species as us. Evidence is that their extinction was simply an uncompetitive culture, isolated from important technological advancements as climate changed. There is no evidence of open conflict with our ancestors.

[ReligionStudent]

Problem with that theory: neadertals are regarded as the same species as us. Evidence is that their extinction was simply an uncompetitive culture, isolated from important technological advancements as climate changed. There is no evidence of open conflict with our ancestors.

Problem with this statment. This is a debate that is ongoing, some use the H. neanderthalensis and some use H. sapiens neanderthalensis. Evolutionary anthropologists and paleoarchaeologists are not fully in consensus over weather to call neanderthals the same species as modern humans or not. (my girlfriend knows much more on this than I do, but from this is what I have gathered from my reading and talking with her).

[latent aaaack]

I'm not getting into a debate about the state of current understanding about Neanderthals (not that it isn't fascinating), but if early sapien populations were able to tell that neanderthals were much more different than other ethnicities and much more advanced than primates, then that could have provoked reserves of hatred that would make today's conflicts look tame.

But then again I'm not making a claim that the two species lived close enough to eachother to have come into much conflict, and total population numbers were so low that populations would have been extremely isolated and might've had great difficulty finding eachother even if they wanted to invest in it.

A species like neanderthals or homo erectus would have been a walking, possibly talking, fire-making, link from sapiens to the natural world and primates and I wonder if, like most sapien civilizations today, this would have been unsettling in the extreme and offensive to their religious views. However also likely is that religions back then had a much different take on creation and was less anthropocentric about everything, like pre-Christian European religions were. But it's not like such evidence would prevent false religious beliefs from taking hold, even today actual easy-to-understand evidence is suppressed and fought in many places and the false religious view is clung to in self deception, so there may have been a similar attitude towards living, walking evidence of sapiens' natural origins.

[skeptifem]

I dont see why college students would be less likely to believe woo(???), in fact a lot of people i know started getting heavy into woo after going to college.

[blutoski]

Problem with this statment. This is a debate that is ongoing, some use the H. neanderthalensis and some use H. sapiens neanderthalensis. Evolutionary anthropologists and paleoarchaeologists are not fully in consensus over weather to call neanderthals the same species as modern humans or not. (my girlfriend knows much more on this than I do, but from this is what I have gathered from my reading and talking with her).

Sure, the debate is ongoing. There are what are called 'lumpers' and 'splitters' in anthropology just as there are in zoology.

The most popular functional definition is that two animals are of the same species if they can produce viable hybridized offspring. There are exceptions only when updating historical classification is inconvenient. eg: lions and tigers produce viable tigons or ligers, but we continue to designate them as species for strictly historical reasons. Kids were traumatized enough about Pluto.

So, the two things sought by physical anthropologists would be either of the following: sequences found in modern humans and Neandertals, but not common in our non-Neandertal ancestors. ie: evidence of hybridization and succesful offspring. That would be a slam-dunk, but the evidence is weak at this time. To be frank, barring a new unexpected discovery, I don't see this happening.

Secondly, however, there is the wasteful debate about genetic 'similarity' by number crunching. Usually mtDNA differences. The 'human threshold' is 24, and Neandertals show 27. But this 'human threshold' is arbitrary, and based on modern humans. Mostly, the evidence against calling them the same species is of this statistical type, and is highly arbitrary.

I tend to ignore these two debates and fall into the category that considers the 24 sequence threshold to be so rigid as to be ridiculous, and also use a more ordinary inspection approach to consider this from a common-sense point of view: based on our findings of their food cacheing technique, these guys knew how to tie a proper slipknot when required, but also used a square knot in a different and more appropriate situation. Saying that some mtRNA threshold is the definition of human in face of this mundane human normalcy in their behavior is wilfully blind.

The major thrust for declaring that neandertals were not human comes from the religious quarter. They just won't admit it up front; it pollutes the field and causes confusion in the lay public.

[blutoski]

I dont see why college students would be less likely to believe woo(???), in fact a lot of people i know started getting heavy into woo after going to college.

And that's no accident: cults and even ordinary religions concentrate recuiting efforts on campuses.

OTOH, paranormalism isn't that organized, so i suspect the increase in paranormal beliefs associated with education is probably more just a consequence of expanded reading and interaction with fellow students who introduce the memes in social settings.

[blutoski]

One of the expressions I like is "knows enough to be dangerous."

Undergraduate education is about exposure to new ideas. Unfortunately, when there are a lot of ideas competing for the student's attention, the victory goes to the simple and intuitive, which is the appeal of woo.

[ReligionStudent]

Sure, the debate is ongoing. There are what are called 'lumpers' and 'splitters' in anthropology just as there are in zoology.

The most popular functional definition is that two animals are of the same species if they can produce viable hybridized offspring. There are exceptions only when updating historical classification is inconvenient. eg: lions and tigers produce viable tigons or ligers, but we continue to designate them as species for strictly historical reasons. Kids were traumatized enough about Pluto.
This is really not a very accurate definition of species, as there are countless instances of different species that can and do interbreed. ie C. familiaris and C. lupis. While there is some justification to the argument that it is for historical purpose and broad based recognition, that is not always true. Species are in constant flux, even when they are well known as two different species. The fact is that this is simply one way to differentiate species, ie if two individuals cannot produce they must be a different species, but there are still other divisions that are more arbitrary, ie range, behavior, and appearance. This also ignores all species on earth (probably most species of living things actually) which do not produce sexually, and examples such as a great dane and a jack russel terrier, which while both are dogs, cannot really reproduce without human assistance.

As for tigons and ligers, these do not link tigers and lions, as only the female tigons and ligers are viable, the males cannot reproduce. This means that they could never actually be a species or link two other species.

[blutoski]

This is really not a very accurate definition of species, as there are countless instances of different species that can and do interbreed. ie C. familiaris and C. lupis. While there is some justification to the argument that it is for historical purpose and broad based recognition, that is not always true.

I think you're just repeating what I said: that species is not an objective classification, and debate is largely semantic and motivated by outside philosophies rather than scientific merit.

My original point was that before suggesting that our ancestors exterminated a competing race/species for religious reasons, it would be appropriate to demonstrate that a) neandertals were actually exterminated, rather than evolved or integrated into our modern genome, and b) that there is evidence of conflict, rather than the neandertals simply dying out of their own accord.

This is one of those 'cart-before-the-horse' conversations that I see frequently in healthfraud, and warn against. To the point of being a broken record. eg: "How does homeopathy work?" (start with: "Does homeopathy work?")

[ReligionStudent]

I think you're just repeating what I said: that species is not an objective classification, and debate is largely semantic and motivated by outside philosophies rather than scientific merit.

My original point was that before suggesting that our ancestors exterminated a competing race/species for religious reasons, it would be appropriate to demonstrate that a) neandertals were actually exterminated, rather than evolved or integrated into our modern genome, and b) that there is evidence of conflict, rather than the neandertals simply dying out of their own accord.

This is one of those 'cart-before-the-horse' conversations that I see frequently in healthfraud, and warn against. To the point of being a broken record. eg: "How does homeopathy work?" (start with: "Does homeopathy work?")

I don't quite think I was saying exactly what you were, since the point of my post was issue with the definition of species you gave.

[strathmeyer]

Are religious colleges easier to graduate from? I can't remember...

[blutoski]

I don't quite think I was saying exactly what you were, since the point of my post was issue with the definition of species you gave.

I didn't say it was "THE" definition. Just the most popular one. I then went on to say that I thought it was inadequate for at least one reason, and compared it to the definition of 'planet', which is obviously arbitrary.

My opinion is that 'species' is very much a classification system that is convenient for human purposes, but not an objective natural phenomenon.

So, when neandertals are declared an extinct species, I have to point out that this is at least iffy, if not probably entirely wrong, and furthermore, probably irrelevant in light of the more important question of whether their unique genetics were incorporated into our lineage, or exterminated entirely.

[ReligionStudent]

I didn't say it was "THE" definition. Just the most popular one. I then went on to say that I thought it was inadequate for at least one reason, and compared it to the definition of 'planet', which is obviously arbitrary.

My opinion is that 'species' is very much a classification system that is convenient for human purposes, but not an objective natural phenomenon.

So, when neandertals are declared an extinct species, I have to point out that this is at least iffy, if not probably entirely wrong, and furthermore, probably irrelevant in light of the more important question of whether their unique genetics were incorporated into our lineage, or exterminated entirely.
I am sorry, I thought you were further refining it or something. As for neanderthals being extinct, how is that iffy? even if they did interbreed with humans, and if you go by the H. neanderthalensis classification, they would still be considered extinct. If all dogs were dead but there were wolves, C. familiaris would be considered extinct.

[bpesta22]

I'm in the process of collecting 100s of students' data looking at the relationship between IQ, information processing ability and religious belief.

There's a burried thread somewhere here about it.

Anyway, I suspect I will show that some of the variance in fundamentalism is eplained by general IQ. Could be wrong though-- we'll see!

[ReligionStudent]

I think Shermer talks about similar studies in his Why We Believe book, I cannot remember what the outcome was though.