Q: It seems that the trend in people with PhD’s is to stop believing in God or start questioning His existence; why is it that the more “educated” you become, the more atheistic you lean?
A: I’m not positive that "more educated" and "atheist" have a direct correlation. Having come from the engineering world, it was drilled in my head to avoid finding a correlation between two variables based on limited evidence. In other words, I might run across a friend at a local coffee shop three times in a five week period and conclude that whenever I go there, he goes there. I may later learn that he goes there every day and therefore there is no correlation between his presence and mine. The fact is that there are many PhD’s who are Christian or believe in a god, so I’m not sure there is a direct correlation between smarts and faith.
On the other hand, there may be an indirect correlation. The more we learn, the more we rely on our learning and our own understanding. God never asks anyone to check his or her brain at the door, and Scripture encourages investigation and discernment. But the Bible says, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes…” and “‘…my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” The wiser we become in our own eyes the easier it becomes to believe only what our minds can grasp.
It does seem that most of the PhD’s we see on TV or meet in person are University Professors &/or Scientists who are either atheists or agnostics. These are people who have spent and continue to spend a great deal of time in secular academia. This environment is not just neutral to the Christian message, but often hostile to it. In many cases there is very little respect for or tolerance of Christian belief in faculty members or researchers. This is especially the case in the area of hard sciences. So, the lack of belief in many who hold PhD’s may simply be the product of their environment.
A: I’m not positive that "more educated" and "atheist" have a direct correlation. Having come from the engineering world, it was drilled in my head to avoid finding a correlation between two variables based on limited evidence. In other words, I might run across a friend at a local coffee shop three times in a five week period and conclude that whenever I go there, he goes there. I may later learn that he goes there every day and therefore there is no correlation between his presence and mine. The fact is that there are many PhD’s who are Christian or believe in a god, so I’m not sure there is a direct correlation between smarts and faith.
On the other hand, there may be an indirect correlation. The more we learn, the more we rely on our learning and our own understanding. God never asks anyone to check his or her brain at the door, and Scripture encourages investigation and discernment. But the Bible says, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes…” and “‘…my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” The wiser we become in our own eyes the easier it becomes to believe only what our minds can grasp.
It does seem that most of the PhD’s we see on TV or meet in person are University Professors &/or Scientists who are either atheists or agnostics. These are people who have spent and continue to spend a great deal of time in secular academia. This environment is not just neutral to the Christian message, but often hostile to it. In many cases there is very little respect for or tolerance of Christian belief in faculty members or researchers. This is especially the case in the area of hard sciences. So, the lack of belief in many who hold PhD’s may simply be the product of their environment.
20 comments:
I take exception and disagree with the premise that the more educated one becomes the more likely they are to become an atheist. In fact, I believe the exact opposite is true. Having an advanced degree myself in the “hard sciences”, the more one learns and understand of the complexities of the universe and creation, the easier it is to see that it is not possible to exist by chance. The fact that something comes from nothing is contrary to the principals of science and although things do change and evolve (small “e”) with time, there are many examples of how “Evolution” (Capital “E“) is contradicted by the presence of more complex processes , than those which would be required if “Evolution” as presented by the “no creator crowd” were true.
I think the difficult thing to wrestle with as an “educated” person is not whether God must exist, but can God be known. So much of the relationship with God is a matter of faith and exist within the spiritual realm, it is difficult for those of us trained in scientific method requiring empirical evidence to support truth, to think in those terms.
I found the following web site, which was helpful to explain many of the questions I have had. You may want to check it out.
http://www.doesgodexist.org/
Thanks for your comment. as I tried to say in the first paragraph, I don't think there is a direct correlation between PhD and unbelief. Much of that is media driven by bringing out the atheist scientist to debate the Christian. Do you disagree that secular academia is a difficult environment in which to be a Christian?
I would think no more so than in most work environments. The Christian world view is the minority opinion in most of our culture.
Perhaps those with a secular view in academia have a captive audience and are emboldened to present their opinion, therefore more noticed, especially in our society of separation of church and state, which inhibits the opposing view.
I would think that those who share similar opinions and interest tend to congregate with each other and are attracted to similar vocations? This may be, in part, why many in academia share a non-christian world view. Not much different than the majority of bartenders, I would think?
I made some errors on my original posts.
I'm a little put off by the statement, "The fact that something comes from nothing is contrary to the principals of science and although things do change and evolve (small “e”) with time, there are many examples of how “Evolution” (Capital “E“) is contradicted by the presence of more complex processes, than those which would be required if “Evolution” as presented by the “no creator crowd” were true."
The writer indicates that there is a viable alternative. That is not a true statement. As a matter of fact Professor Behe of noted ID fame has continued to spread is lies of irreducible complexity despite them being disproven (using his own examples even). There are lots of atheists out there that have lied to make their point. This is wrong and I correct it when I see it. What is even worse though is when supposed Christians lie to persuade the public that their position is correct. I say it's more wrong because atheist have no set of guiding principals to follow; let your conscience be your guide as it were. You should read the judges decision on http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf . In the decision you will see that Behe was presented with evidence directly refuting his “theory” of irreducible complexity. Since then he has made the same exact arguments at the Kansas Board of Education hearings that he admitted were refuted in the Dover case. The transcript of the trial is also available at the above referenced site but you’ll have to do some digging.
What does that mean about the truth of evolution? Nothing. The fact that ID is a fraud does in no way substantiate evolution theory. What is does though is demonstrate that there is no secular alternative theory for how we got here. I’d just like to point out that evolution theory does not specify how life started; it only talks about how it evolved. Some scientists and theologians believe that evolution theory is consistent with biblical teachings and belief in God.
If you want proof of evolution go to this site. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio039.htm
It basically says there is not now nor will there ever be proof of evolution theory. Does that mean evolution should be banned from the classroom? Well, I believe if you want to have a private school that teaches Creation Theory you should. I also believe that children in public schools should not be indoctrinated with anyone’s religious teachings while at school. Their parents should decide what they are taught about creation and all the rest of us Americans should respect the parent’s wishes.
As to whether evolution, since it can’t be proven, should be taught in classrooms I have this to say:
1. Evolution is not a religion no matter how many people (including Dawkins) describe it that way. Saying evolution is a religion is like saying electrical theory is a religion but I don’t see anyone religious organizations trying to discredit that. And yes, there are elements in electrical theory which although they work we can’t explain why they work.
2. Evolution is the best scientific theory we have to explain how we came to be here. The fact that is disagrees with the creation story in Genesis, is not very important to the argument. There are people who claim the earth is 6,000 years old. All the scientific evidence points to it being around 14.5 billion years old. If you think scientific dating processes are unreliable you need to study it more. Don’t go to a Christian Science web site to learn more about it either. In my experience they exclude some key information which would validate the procedures.
Perhaps God didn’t tell Moses how he created man out of clay. Suppose if you mix clay and God’s power together you get life which eventually evolved into humans? Better yet, what if when you mix nothing and God’s power together you get a big bang which eventually leads you to read this blog? That is a powerful God indeed.
3. Not teaching children evolution just because some people don’t agree with it is reducing the education of all the children of our nation and we will suffer if we do it.
4. If you want your children to learn about Creation Theory, take them to church.
I’m not a scientist nor do I hold an advanced degree. Does that mean my thoughts and argument are invalid? I guess that is up to you. Don’t take my word about anything. Check it for yourself. I have checked for myself and the above information is what I have discovered.
I’m sorry this is so long but it’s time all of us grew up and stopped arguing against a point of view we disagree with if our only source of information is from people/publications that have an agenda which includes discrediting that same point of view.
I know I'm probably wearing this subject out but it's important to me. I did some searching on the Internet last night for proof of Intelligent Design (not the first time I have done this either). I'll admit I only went to one site this time. The basic view of this site was that since evolution couldn't be substantiated and that since many of the "discoveries" in the fossil record were forgeries, it is an invalid theory. I even went as far as to check some of the information they sighted. The quote they used, “In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.” was correct. The article it came from was making the point that even though one can't use evolution to predict what fossils will appear, evolution is a useful and scientifically sound theory. The author went on to say, ‘One of the ironies of the evolution creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this "fact" in their Flood geology.’
Then I went on to search for "proof" of evolution and I came across the best written document I have seen on the debate between Creationism and Evolution being taught in the classroom. The essay is very non-threatening to the Christian point of view and I beg anyone interested in the subject to read the entire article. You might like the way it ends. It's at
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/creationism.htm
The above quotes are from David M. Raup, Professor of Geology, University of Chicago, "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289
Two quick responses: First, there are a number of Christians who do not feel faith in God is incompatible with belief in evolutionary theory. I have my own doubts about evolution, but it makes me little difference. If evolution was proven it wouldn't disturb my faith. Again, as we've stated elsewhere in this blog, the Bible is more concerned with Who created rather than how it happened. I like to think that God created this wonderful world and left the discoveries of how things work up to us to figure out.
Second, I suggest you read the original materials rather than basing your views on creation or ID from internet sites. Read their books; let the original authors speak for themselves.
You have a great interest in science, I can see. May I suggest Francis Collins' new book, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." Collins is the head of the Human Genome Project and is highly respected in the scientific community. I think you would find it fascinating reading, even if you didn't agree with all his conclusions.
This is a quote from Wikipedia on Francis Collins ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29)
"Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He became a believer after observing the faith of his critically ill patients and reading Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.
In Collins' book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (published in July 2006), he considers scientific discoveries an "opportunity to worship." In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and Intelligent Design. His own belief system is Theistic Evolution (TE) which he prefers to term BioLogos. BioLogos rests on the following premises: (1) The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago, (2) Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life, (3) While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time, (4) Once evolution got under way no special supernatural intervention was required, (5) Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes, (6) But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history."
I agree with everything but item 6.
I also read the first few chapters of the C.S. Lewis Book, “Mere Christianity” a couple of years ago. I quit reading it because he starts with an assumption that I couldn’t swallow and he just kept building on it. I do not agree that human beings have a mysterious understanding of a moral law. I believe people learn these “moral laws” by being human beings. I did some searching on the Internet trying to find a psychological study which is similar to my point of view and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget
"In moral education, [Jean] Piaget believed in two basic principles. The first one is the fact that children develop moral ideas in stages. The other is the children make their idea of the world "The child is someone who constructs his own moral world view, who forms ideas about right and wrong, and fair and unfair, that are not the direct product of adult teaching and that are often maintained in the face of adult wishes to the contrary" (Gallagher, 1978, p.26). The idea is that children observe the world, and then decide what is morally correct. So in today's education, we have started to bring moral education into education, such as talking about cheating and what is morally correct in today's society, dealing with crime and morals in politics."
Not that I read the book sited but I would imagine that since Jean Piaget was a scientist that his theory was based on scientific study. I can’t really remember the C.S. Lewis book too well, but if I remember correctly he expects you to come to his conclusion (moral law comes from God) based in your own experiences of being upset by watching someone take advantage of another. I’ll go back and reread it to give you my specific objection to the major assumption in his argument.
I should add that the thing that gets me upset about this whole debate is the push to teach Creation Theory or Intelligent Design in public school science classes. Whether people believe in evolution or not doesn't matter to me. I don't even care if kids believe it. The fact is that Creation Science and Intelligent Design are not science. They are both religion. This isn't my claim. It's the claim of the United States Government. The judge who made the decision, by the way, was appointed by the pro-teach-the-controversy George Bush. The judge himself was also pro-teach-the-controversy. The evidence presented in the trial changed the judge’s mind. The trial wasn't about whether ID or evolution is right. The judge determined ID was Creationism in disguise and therefore religion and had no place in public school science classes. Everything I have said about this trial is public information.
By the way, Creationism is exclusive to Judeo-Christian religions and is not compatible with Hinduism. I’m not sure about other religion’s creation beliefs.
This essay, I referenced above, explains things in a much better way than I ever could.
You dismiss C. S. Lewis way too quickly. If I told you Piaget was a Christian, would that change your opinion? It seems you are accepting him because he's a scientist, not because his views are right.
The point Lewis makes is confirmed by sociologists: certain actions are applauded and denounced universally. No society, for instance, approves of betrayal. Why? Lewis simply points out that there is a universal law within us and that demands an explanation. Where did those concepts of right and wrong come from, held by people of all different cultures and in different eras?
The atheist has a much deeper problem and that is how is anything ever considered moral? Who is to say love is better than hate? Isn't human life just chemical reactions and electrical impulses? If so, who are we to say that Mother Teresa was better than Hitler?
I stopped reading “Mere Christianity” before because it seemed he couldn’t imagine that anyone could possibly think these common values could have come from anywhere other than God and the whole rest of his argument relied on that initial assumption. I started reading it again this morning. I might have been too hasty to quit before.
I don’t know what I said that made you think that I didn’t value what Christians had to say about a particular topic. I only care if people are honest. I believe C.S. Lewis believes what he says. I just don’t happen to agree with it. As for Piaget, I accept his views because they make sense. Therefore, I believe them to be right.
I agree that there is a seemingly universal moral law. I say seemingly because there are many tribes of people who behave in ways that are taboo in the Christian west. So everyone does not universally agree on what is right and wrong. I picked Piaget because his explanation didn’t require God. The fact is there is an alternate view. Many Christians look for mystical answers to things. It’s easy to give God credit for anything. He’s all powerful. If you try to find an answer that doesn’t require God’s intervention it’s not that hard to find one either. Social interactions are extremely complicated. People’s behavior in a social setting results from a combination of their values and their experiences in a similar setting. Take this scenario for example, if a white guy who hasn’t been exposed to black people goes into a bar full of black people, he will likely feel uncomfortable and leave even if he’s never had a bad experience with black people. I know this isn’t what you are talking about exactly but it is still a behavior connected with the way we treat other people and deserves explanation. You might be thinking that your values come from God. There are sociologists who disagree.
As for atheists and their problems explaining morality; I’m not trying to be insulting but anyone who spends a minute or two thinking about love and its effects (as opposed to source) should be able to realize why love is preferable to hate. Chemical reaction or not, we still feel what we feel and there are theories explain such phenomena without invoking God. For example, I used to smoke and it was incredibly hard to quite. My urge to smoke was overwhelming. It took me over 10 years and hundreds of attempts (maybe not hundreds but a bunch) to quit. I knew the entire time that I shouldn’t smoke. I didn’t want to smoke. I kept doing it because my chemical dependency was stronger than my will power. Knowing there are chemical reactions driving your behavior doesn’t necessarily make you the master of it.
I’m sure you know this but for the sake of the other readers, a Deist is a person who believes that God created the universe and then went on permanent vacation. If I were a Deist would you ask me why I know love is better than hate?
I have a very good friend who is a Baptist preacher. He and I debate this stuff all the time. He assumes all people are inherently bad. He believes that because that is what the bible tells him. I on the other hand believe people want to be good. I think even people who do bad things justify them so that they seem good to them. I know C.S. Lewis said a similar thing. You have to remember that he assumes God put it in everyone. I don’t make that assumption.
Terry: It's good to look at what drives our assumptions. Remember that C. S. Lewis came out of atheism and became, what he described, "the most reluctant convert in all of England." His is a voice worth listening to.
You are not insulting in your observations about love. I feel the same way. But love doesn't always fit the evolutionary model. In fact, sometimes it downright flies in its face. Love is not self seeking. Darwinism teaches survival first. A firefighter who runs into a burning building, as many of those guys in the FDNY did on 9/11, is not acting according to evolutionary theory.
One of the arguments for the existence of God is the argument from moral law. It goes like this: 1. Every law has a law giver. 2. There is a moral law. 3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver. The Deist Thomas Jefferson wrote it into the Declaration of Independence: "Nature's Law is self evident." You don't need reason to discover it; you just know it. Most atheists, when pressed, admit that they cannot truly know what is right or wrong. As a Christian, I would say you can't explain it without God.
I'm going to wait to debate the merits of "Mere Christianity" and Lewis's position until I read the book.
The name Moral Law is something that you use. The Moral Law is nothing more than universally accepted rules for behavior. If you believe in God I would say it would be perfectly logical to assume these universally accepted rules for behavior are planted in everyone at or before birth. You argue that if you don’t believe in God there is no way to account for these rules. Is it possible that just being human and experiencing things with our senses and evaluating those sensations with our brain leads to some universal truths?
It seems to me that you are oversimplifying natural selection. Just because a fire fighter has a chance of being removed from the gene pool by running into a burning building does not invalidate natural selection. There are many people who are thrill seekers. People sky dive and do all kinds of dangerous things just for fun. Does this prove or even indicate that natural selection is not at work? I don’t think so. It is my understanding that race car drivers have a very high threshold for excitement. It takes a lot to get their adrenaline pumping. It’s a well-known fact that people seek adrenaline rushes. If they didn’t roller-coasters would not exist. It seems the detractors of evolution and natural selection try to simplify each action people take into a single motivating factor. This is an extreme oversimplification. Human behavior is extremely complicated, probably because of natural selection, and people do some things because a large combination of factors lining up to motivate that behavior. You might eat because you are hungry. But why do you eat what you eat? It might be because you are diabetic, or overweight, or you have high cholesterol, or any number of other single reasons or a combination of factors. Since you brought natural selection up I have this one last thing to say about it… today. If the same motivating factor which leads to your early demise causes you to seek reproductive experiences earlier in life that it causes you to exhibit the risky behavior then the fact that you get removed from the gene pool as a result of the risky behavior is irrelevant. Also if people who participate in risky behaviors are much more likely to produce offspring while alive while only slight more likely to die at a given age the gene or sequence of genes which promote this risky behavior are more likely to be passed on or selected.
Why does there have to be a law giver? That statement doesn't make any sense. I have ideas. Is there an idea giver? Sometimes my ideas are bad so I will assume that if you answer yes to that question the idea giver you have in mind isn’t God.
Terry: Of course the statement makes sense. Tell me of one law that wasn't written by a law giver. Every law has a law giver just like every design has a designer.
When I said, “Why does there have to be a law giver?” I meant law in the context that you were using law. You are using law as a set of universally accepted rules of behavior. No one has to give a set of universally accepted rules of behavior.
Terry: Those universally accepted rules of behavior are often called "moral law" or, in the words of the Declaration, "Nature's law." This is an accepted concept both within and outside the Christian community. Where does it come from? My observation is that an atheist has a harder time accounting for the existence of good than a Christian has for evil.
More educated men than me have already answered this question, or some variation of it, of how does an atheist explain the concept of good. Dawkins does a pretty good job of it in The God Delusion.
BTW when I wrote my original rebuttal to the intelligent design reference I didn’t mean to (and don’t think I did) imply that there was no God or that belief in him was foolish. I merely said that people who put forth the idea that there is an alternative scientific explanation for how we (not life) came to be here are misleading the public. I think I provided plenty of references showing that evolution is the only viable scientific explanation. I challenge anyone to present a scientific argument that nullifies evolution. Intelligent Design, as I said before does not. Furthermore, those people who are advocates of it like Mike Behe continue to spread lies about the "gaps" in evolution theory. All of the backup documentation for my allegations is in my first post on the subject.
As an atheist, I have to wonder what part of the moral law (since you brought it up) allows these proponents of creation theory (intelligent design) to continue to make these false statements. Is it ok to lie as long as you are tricking people into believing something that may help them maintain their faith? I think not. As I recall, "God hates a liar."
I never intended my post to become a campaign against belief in God, which seems to be what it has turned into. My honest opinion of you and the other people who maintain this blog is that you are all very devout people who are trying to help your community. I absolutely respect you and your staff for that noble goal.
I'm sorry I strayed so far off course. I was actually hoping to add to the spirit of your discussion on these blogs and not try to convince people who are obviously searching for spiritual guidance (or guidance on spiritual matters) that my way of thinking is right or the only way. It’s right for me but that is another topic. According to the statistics, most people find faith in God to be an important part of their lives. Who am I to tell anyone they are wrong? I can't prove there is not a God. I never intended to argue it here for the reason I stated above. I got caught up in the debate.
The only place where I stated I was an atheist was under the atheist and agnosticism section and only in response to how do I convert my agnostic friend. I thought it might be helpful to understand what goes on in the mind of an atheist.
The reason I wrote all of this is because I don’t think there is any value in continuing this particular debate. Anything you come up with I will be able to comfortably explain without using God to my own satisfaction and you will most certainly and probably with more conviction have a spiritual explanation. Therefore, I am throwing in the proverbial towel on the moral law argument and will try to only add my opinions and observations where I think they will be helpful to the goal of this forum.
I promise to rebut any atheist who stretches the truth to persuade people that there is not God and will certainly point out flaws in argument on the other side when I can substantiate them as I did with the ID reference. I don’t think any good will come of either side publishing misleading or false statements. I’m sure God doesn’t want worshipers who were tricked into believing in him. No one who lies about the existence of God and related topics is doing anyone any favors.
Terry: I agree wholeheartedly. Lying in the name of God or to further one's argument, even if it's an argument for God, is still lying. If folks in the ID movement are intentionally spreading misinformation, they are not helping the cause.
Personally, I have not taken exception to your comments. I appreciate your love for truth.
Post a Comment