Strength of Islam vs Christianity.

Gurgle

Sleepy wrote:

My argument is that the countries where Islam is the dominant religion tend to be those with poorer education levels than those where Christianity is the dominant religion (outside of Africa). i.e. that the religion is stronger because it's followers are less educated.

Nope, not really.
South America is predominantly catholic.

Schuhart

Sleepy wrote:

Obviously in the real world there are many factors that influence religous adherance but I genuinely believe that the level of education of a population is one.

I don’t think education is the issue and, while I have been Touched by His Noodly Appendage into believing the Eight I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts , neither is the Flying Spagetti Monster.

The issue, for me at any rate, is why a perfectly well educated person decides to ignore things they can see are untrue and profess belief. And, to be honest, Islam is only on our minds in this context because some people professing to follow that faith crashed two planes into New York in front of the world’s media and others regarding themselves as co-religionists have also done some fairly brutal things that have also attracted media interest.

The ability of people to hold manifestly strange beliefs is certainly not restricted to them, and certainly not restricted to uneducated people. Some thing makes many of us want to believe that, in some form, Santa Claus has a list with our name on it, and something nice that he’s going to bring down the chimney next Christmas.

Tsukanda

Sleepy wrote:

I do not contend that science can disprove the existence of a deity. I would contend that such a belief is logically unsound and am very interested to hear why any rational human being would choose to ignore this logic and take the 'leap of faith' required to believe in one because the only motivations I can see to do this is fear (of one's own mortality, of one's inability to mentally cope without the comfort of religious beliefs). And believing something because of a fear of living without it, to me, is highly irrational.

Hm.

You contend that a belief in a deity (specific deity, or are you using Catholicism as an example? Of course, the latter...) is logically unsound on the bases that a relatively minor aspect of this religion is scientifically unsound.

Well, yes, I'd agree that miracles etc. as described in the bible etc. are very dismissable. As you've already said.

However, these miracles are not really important for the religion to survive/ for the religion's God to exist. These are merely ideas which nudge those who are already convinced by other methods that this religion is hunky dorey.

That is:

Jethro believes in God.

Jethro likes the idea of Catholicism.

Oh boy, Jethro loves that Catholicism!

Look Jethro, the Catholic God is so cool he can make wierd things happen, as outlined in this book.

Wow, God sure is great.


I hope what I've said so far is understandable for you. Basically, these miracles you've wielded to attack a religion, are irrelevant for the religion overall. Some followers of Religion X might even say, "By golly, I love this religion, but those miracles are quite absurd. Still, it's Religion X for me!"

-->miracles are bull****.

-->miracles are not essential for religion.

-->even if miracles are bull****, and proven so, followers of this religion are not convinced of this religion's flaws.


Sorry that I've repeated my point in three exciting ways. But I hope it's clear.

CrazySka

Originally Posted by Sleepy
Obviously in the real world there are many factors that influence religous adherance but I genuinely believe that the level of education of a population is one.

You only have to look at scientology to see that educated people (and i dont think scientology beliefs are ever talked about in schools, which kinda blows your secular education theory out of the water) can believe stranger things than mainstream religion.

Schuhart

You are right, and I think we also have to get away from the idea that Islam is from another planet.

About twenty years ago I was travelling through Malaysia. There was a story in the local papers about this fundamentalist Islamic girls’ school. Basically it was one of those places where the girls aren’t allowed to do any active sports, and lessons consist of Quran, Quran and more Quran.

There was an outbreak of good, old fashioned hysteria at the school. It was a virtual epidemic, and a lot of the girls ended up in the local hospital. Of course, there was nothing actually wrong about them. The doctors advised them to leave off the religion for a bit, and try playing some football or something. When the parents’ heard this, the story hit the media.

I had no problem following this story or picturing the people involved because it wasn’t so terribly unlike some of the dramas we were acting out in Ireland around the same time. I could picture the kind of craw thumper that would choose to send his daughter to a school where they’d wrap her in a sheet from head to toe. I could picture his reaction to ‘some smart alec Dublin 4 doctor sneering at the plain decent people.’

The things we’re talking about are not beyond our understanding – or experience.

InFront

Nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God/ Allah/ Yaweh/ the tooth fairy. It is an argument that has gone on for centuries, and our discussion here will not bring it to an end. In case I came across as a little flippant in referring to religion as 'irrational' I should say that what I mean by that is that given everyday logic, it doesnt appear to make sense. Just because it appears odd/ irrational doen not mean it cannot be true. I choose religion because I feel it to be true

Who carries the burden of proof? The believer or the non-believer? Neither. Because neither of us can prove our beliefs in the strictest sense of the verb. We can be convinced, and aim to export our convictions to others, but often that is not enough. Those of us who follow Islam, or whatever religion, do so not for reasons of birth or culture. I can only speak for myself when I say that if that were the case I would have given it up as a 16 year old.

I personally feel Allah to be with me at all times, as do all people of faith. If you think that sounds ridiculous, it is your own perspective and you are entitled to it. Science cannot prove a God exists, neither can it disprove or define the heartfelt conviction of enduring faith.

So it seems, that at the end of the world, believers: Muslim, Christian, Jew... and Scientologist, will continue to exist with the agnostic and the athiest. Until then we just have to get along and stop trying to challenege one another's intelligence or lack of it. I think that on that on the last day the one thing that unites us all will still be our complete ignorance about the world! To chose quite a biblical metaphor, This debate makes me think of human race as a boat full of people lost at sea. Half of them claiming to see land and the other half calling it foolish optimism.

On the original topic, yes followers of Islam tend to be far stricter in their worship than my experience of catholics. I dont know why that is or whether it will continue. As society moves, and mixed marriages become more popular (probably) I supsect that, like everything, it will change, but who knows.

growler

john_dub wrote:

You only have to look at scientology to see that educated people (and i dont think scientology beliefs are ever talked about in schools, which kinda blows your secular education theory out of the water) can believe stranger things than mainstream religion.

why do you think scientology is any more unlikely to be true than any other belief system ?


"To chose quite a biblical metaphor, This debate makes me think of human race as a boat full of people lost at sea. Half of them claiming to see land and the other half calling it foolish optimism"

that would seem to be a question of eyesight than faith, the land is either visible or it isn't.

InFront

The athiests arent looking hard enough:D

CrazySka

why do you think scientology is any more unlikely to be true than any other belief system ?

I actually did a bit of digging into the whole scientology thing a while ago and imo their beliefs make the bible look like an encyclopedia but besides that the fact is that scientology is a "religion" where you pay to reach each level, thats what makes me think so.
Some people (argumentative ones) will say that all religions make you pay inone way or another, but the fact is i can walk into a church and worship without paying.
We've been through the whole scientology question before on the spirituality forum, i dont really want to get into it again, was simply using it to illustrate the fact that educated people can take on beliefs that some would call ridiculous.

Sleepy

InFront wrote:

The athiests arent looking hard enough:D

or the theists are looking too hard

InFront

Sleepy wrote:

or the theists are looking too hard

Exactly, thats the debate, isnt it. Its not really worth arguing over as nobody knows and logical argument doesnt prove or disprove anything.

growler

john_dub wrote:

I actually did a bit of digging into the whole scientology thing a while ago and imo their beliefs make the bible look like an encyclopedia but besides that the fact is that scientology is a "religion" where you pay to reach each level, thats what makes me think so.
.

So because the bible has even more fairy tales than hubbards ramblings its more valid , what if you didn't have to pay , would it be ok then?


Originally Posted by InFront
The athiests arent looking hard enough

I looked, there was nothing to see.

the_new_mr

I just noticed now that in my last post I said:

"I know a few converts and their conviction in their religion has impressed me so much along with how well they practice it that I would feel that I'm practicing properly at all!"

when I should have said:
"I know a few converts and their conviction in their religion has impressed me so much along with how well they practice it that I would feel that I'm not practicing properly at all!"

So, what I meant was that their conviction is incredibly impressive underlining the fact that they aren't "ignoring stuff" as some have suggested and makes me feel that I should be better.

The text with the typo is kinda true (if grammatically incorrect ) now that I look at it too.

I can't speak for other religions and I can't even speak on behalf of Islam but I can speak as a Muslim and my experience as one along with my views of it. Human beings need religion in some way, shape or form. Humans want a purpose. To feel that they are not just coasting through life. If someone does not follow a religion per se then they follow something else like the pursuit of money, a career, perfect love, a better country, better law, etc. All of these things are perfectly fine and there's nothing wrong with them nor do they conflict with most religions.

As I've already said, I don't feel that me following religion is irrational. That's how I feel and that's how I know a majority of Muslims feel. It's difficult to explain but it's a little different than for people of other faiths. I know that seems arrogant and apologies for that but I'm just telling you what I see. And to continue with the things that may sound arrogant (apologies once again), a friend of mine once said "A person of another faith thinks they're following the right path but the Muslim knows they are"

I recently said to someone that I believe that everyone should question their beliefs. The mind is of a naturally questioning nature and people should not just accept things just for the sake of it. A questioned faith, if it survives the question, is a stronger faith. I can say that thank God, any question that either my mind or someone else has brought up has strengthened my faith.

As InFront has already said, the discussion will never end. There will always be both groups and both are entitled to their own opinion.

Personally speaking, I feel that most Muslims are happy to follow their faith because their faith doesn't have to be blind faith. The miracles of the Quran help to strengthen the faith of those who believe. Also, when it is practiced properly, it really does make your life easier for a number of reasons (sense of purpose, acceptance of good and bad, laws, guidance etc).

I know this all seems very off-topic but I think it's exactly what the original question is about and perhaps explains a little why some choose to veer away and others choose not to.

Anyway, let's all live in peace together and respect each other's opinions Some of the posters in this thread are caught up in a ding-dong batte that's going round in circle. There's no point arguing because it gets us nowhere.

Sleepy

[post deleted for being off-topic, I'll raise this in a new thread]

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

So, what I meant was that their conviction is incredibly impressive underlining the fact that they aren't "ignoring stuff" as some have suggested and makes me feel that I should be better.

That's common enough with any new convert to any religion. You see it with the born again Christian types too. I saw it with an aquaintance of mine who converted to Judaeism. He definitely became more "jewish" than the Jews themselves. Genrally, the zeal of the new convert is going to be stronger than those brought up in the faith. Novelty and all that.

Human beings need religion in some way, shape or form. Humans want a purpose. To feel that they are not just coasting through life. If someone does not follow a religion per se then they follow something else like the pursuit of money, a career, perfect love, a better country, better law, etc

Not really, life can bring it's own purpose. Some people don't require a deity to fear(or love) to see such a purpose. It's an arrogant position to decide that all humans need religion, especially an organised heirarchical religion. That humans need a spiritual existence is harder to deny IMHO. That spirituality can take many forms, not just the obviously religious. Many atheistic scientists get a "spiritual" kick from the discoveries on the nature of our universe. without the need for a personal God, or gods at all. Our earliest ancestors (shaminstic) sought the spiritual on a personal basis, sometimes through shamans, sometimes not. No holy books or churches were needed. A different kind of religion to the two we're debating today. Less fear based to boot. The Abrahamic faiths contain a lot of fear. Fear of hell, fear of offending a vengeful God(whose instructions can be tortuously vague and often needs priests/imams/rabbis to explain. Power ahoy), fear of sin etc. From the outside, that's what most of this is about, fear of death and fear of offending an unseen deity.

As I've already said, I don't feel that me following religion is irrational. That's how I feel and that's how I know a majority of Muslims feel. It's difficult to explain but it's a little different than for people of other faiths. I know that seems arrogant and apologies for that but I'm just telling you what I see.

How can you speak for a majority of any human group? I respect your apology, but I tend to agree with you, it's quite an arrogant stance.

And to continue with the things that may sound arrogant (apologies once again), a friend of mine once said "A person of another faith thinks they're following the right path but the Muslim knows they are"

:eek: Do you not realise, that if you care to ask any devout Christian you'll get the same line. Every faith thinks they're right and everybody else is deluded or downright wrong. History has sadly shown what can happen if that guff is taken to extremes. While groups of fundamentalist Christians(and others) think they're right, from what you're appearing to say is that the majority of Muslims think this more fervently.

I read a recent article on Muslim Britain in the sunday times magazine and the writer, while being sympatheic, made the observation that quite a lot of Muslims of all hues have this arrogance and "them and us" position, even down to calling converts "reverts", as we're all Muslim really, we just don't know it. Arrogance in faith that lofty hasn't been seen en masse since pre reformation Europe. The next time I berate the US for a similar arrogance(also quasi religious), it may well be tempered by this.

Christian countries, have at least become increasingly secular over time. Islam has become less secular over the same time period. At it's height Islam was quite secular for it's time, which made it a shining example to christian europe. Indeed up until the mid 20th century, Muslim countries were as secular, or more so than "western" states. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan to name but five, were just as "modern" states as those in the christian west. Even more so in some cases. The pattern since then has gotten increasingly fundamentalist in all of the aforementioned.

As InFront has already said, the discussion will never end. There will always be both groups and both are entitled to their own opinion.

True enough.

Personally speaking, I feel that most Muslims are happy to follow their faith because their faith doesn't have to be blind faith. The miracles of the Quran help to strengthen the faith of those who believe.

If you believe those are miracles in the first place. You accept they must be because they're in your holy book. Because I don't believe in the latter on face value, the former looks far too vague and incorrect.

Also, when it is practiced properly, it really does make your life easier for a number of reasons (sense of purpose, acceptance of good and bad, laws, guidance etc).

And what of those is missing in other faiths, pray tell?

Anyway, let's all live in peace together and respect each other's opinions

Here here.

Schuhart

I think it is worth remembering people tend to practice the religion they were brought up in. I know people who think miracles, Papal infallibility and the sacramental powers of priests are all hokum, but still attend Mass because they believe some kind of deity exists and feel the Catholic rituals are as good and valid an expression of that as any. Belief in a deity is one thing. Belief that deity gave an exclusive franchise to any faith is quite another.

I don’t think the key point is really about people continuing in the tradition they were raised. I’m not even sure that diligent practice is particularly interest. Its not as if devout practice was unknown to us. I recall a colleague saying how she was finding it hard to think of something to give their parents for their 50th wedding anniversary because ‘all they do is eat and pray’.

I’ve read some material about the Islamic rules on apostasy, and the impression I get is of a religion going through much the same process as Catholicism. There are hidebound Islamic scholars, like Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, saying ‘of course heretics should be executed, and anyone who says they shouldn’t obviously hasn’t a clue about what a valid Hadith is’. There are muddling Islamic scholars of a Father Ted Crilly type saying ‘Well, you don’t have to kill every heretic. It might be enough just to give them a stern telling off’. But there are also liberal Islamic scholars saying ‘Of course we shouldn’t persecute heretics. Do you think its better to be a hypocrite?’ I don’t think it’s hard to see where that debate is heading, because we’ve seen a similar process winding out.

The more you look into it, the more you seem similarities between Islam and Irish Catholicism as practiced in the past. It’s utterly understandable, even down to recalling that one of the standard Catholic bible readings for weddings includes a statement along the lines of ‘the gift of God is a quiet woman in a well-kept house’. (Which I think explains why so many opted for the ones about 'My love is like a stag that leaps and bounds' and 'Without love I am like a clanging gong'. Not many women want to be told to shut up and stay in the kitchen at their wedding.)

The real question IMHO is not why someone told from birth that the Pope was picked by the Holy Spirit, or the Archangel Gabriel whispered the Quran into a prophet’s ear retains a belief in that faith. It’s why someone who should know better decides to turn off their critical faculties and follow Creationism.

hairyheretic

Wibbs wrote:

Our earliest ancestors (shaminstic) sought the spiritual on a personal basis, sometimes through shamans, sometimes not. No holy books or churches were needed. A different kind of religion to the two we're debating today. Less fear based to boot.

And people are returning to those beliefs, as can be seen in the growing numbers of assorted pagans.

Wibbs wrote:

Do you not realise, that if you care to ask any devout Christian you'll get the same line. Every faith thinks they're right and everybody else is deluded or downright wrong. History has sadly shown what can happen if that guff is taken to extremes. While groups of fundamentalist Christians(and others) think they're right, from what you're appearing to say is that the majority of Muslims think this more fervently.

IMO that tends to be a viewpoint of monotheistic beliefs. Those who have a pantheistic or polytheistic belief are more likely to go "That is your god, this is / these are mine."

Wibbs

Schuhart wrote:

Belief that deity gave an exclusive franchise to any faith is quite another.

That sadly can be the dangerous bit.

I’ve read some material about the Islamic rules on apostasy, and the impression I get is of a religion going through much the same process as Catholicism. There are hidebound Islamic scholars, like Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, saying ‘of course heretics should be executed, and anyone who says they shouldn’t obviously hasn’t a clue about what a valid Hadith is’. There are muddling Islamic scholars of a Father Ted Crilly type saying ‘Well, you don’t have to kill every heretic. It might be enough just to give them a stern telling off’. But there are also liberal Islamic scholars saying ‘Of course we shouldn’t persecute heretics. Do you think its better to be a hypocrite?’ I don’t think it’s hard to see where that debate is heading, because we’ve seen a similar process winding out.

Hopefully, but there are differences. For a start, no central authority in Islam beyond the Quran and Hadeeth, makes such a change less likely, certainly a widespread change. The belief among those of the Muslim faith that what's contained in said books is for all time and immutable is another stumbling block to a change like the one we saw with catholicism here. That even to question the need for reform can be considered "against Islam" is yet another difference(the nutters may silence quieter more reflective voices too easily as well). The very question fo reform is considered arrogant and offside, as the source is already considered perfect by it's adherants(the usual explanation for any wrongdoing in it's name is that they're not following the faith properly).

Christianity and catholicism have/had more grey areas than exist in islam, as certain points of law and behaviour were based in church tradition rather than what Jesus actually preached. Also teh seperation between church and state is written in at source(give all to caesar that's caesars, my kingdom is not of this earth etc). Islam is a more complete encompassing faith, in both the secular and religious arenas. More bases are covered as it were. While many of the faith will ease up on certain aspects, especially in those grey areas that do exist, the core belief, written down all those years ago, may take a long time to change if ever. Hey it's their bag so it's up to them. It may only come to difficulty if such beliefs are contrary to societies that conflict with those precepts. That's the same with any rigid belief system though. I'd be just as rigid with regard to democracy as an example.

Schuhart

Wibbs wrote:

The belief among those of the Muslim faith that what's contained in said books is for all time and immutable is another stumbling block to a change like the one we saw with catholicism here.

I still think there's enough common ground to make a valid comparison. Contrast, for example, the Catholic experience of the traditionalists that broke away after the Second Vatican Council. It might look like the Vatican can issue edicts from on high. But they face practical limits to the extent that they can go without losing a portion of their adherents.

Wibbs wrote:

Islam is a more complete encompassing faith, in both the secular and religious arenas.

I know what you are getting at - there's a difference in scope. But, again, there's common ground that I think makes the situation understandable. Bear in mind that in Ireland in the thirties and forties, Catholic social teaching would have had a bearing on the political world. While there is no idea of a 'Catholic' State, at the same time some laws were clearly influenced by the religious outlook of the country at that time. I'm thinking in particular of laws on contraception, censorship and divorce. Control of schools and health services was left to the Churches.

Islam is not beyond our understanding. I think we know this outlook very well.

InFront

Wibbs wrote:

it's quite an arrogant stance. :eek: Do you not realise, that if you care to ask any devout Christian you'll get the same line. Every faith thinks they're right and everybody else is deluded or downright wrong.

If Hobbes will excuse me, and whilst not being able to speak for him or supposing to, I dont think he is denying other religions their beliefs. Such is their free choice.
But for every Muslim, his faith is central to his existence, to his community, family, his mind and to his personal life. Being so enveloped in your faith fastens and reinforces it. I agree with his assertion that Muslims 'know' they are right, but to say that is not to be arrogant, for being arrogant alludes to superiority and authority on God. I do not observe such pretences but rather 'know' I am right because what I suppose to be right works and living my life by the Quran convinces me of God.
Living my life by God (or at least, hoping to) opens my eyes to Him because it makes me happy and makes those around me content and applying the written word to my living life brings about an experiecne of harmony that assures me that I am correct in my actions and in my religious studies. In fact, going wrong in life by living away from His word, and seeing the dangers of straying from God, also serves to reassure me of what is right.

I am sure there are Christians who feel that they experience this as well. And dont get me wrong, sometimes I seem to question these things that religion has taught me. But such rebellion is more often rebellion against myself and self doubt rather than necessarily questioning God.

Hobbes:

As I've already said, I don't feel that me following religion is irrational

I hope you dont think that is what I mean. What I am trying to suggest is that lessons on God and His world often defy scientific explanation, and anyone that believes anyway, in the eyes of cold science, is 'irrational' in the sense they extend their firm beliefs beyond the strictly provable. Such an extension is brought about by the arm of faith, which is a wonderful thing and something we should be proud of:)

the_new_mr

Great post there InFront. Don't think I could put it better myself

I think you might have mixed Hobbes and I up but I guess everyone probably picked up on that.

InFront wrote:

What I am trying to suggest is that lessons on God and His world often defy scientific explanation, and anyone that believes anyway, in the eyes of cold science, is 'irrational' in the sense they extend their firm beliefs beyond the strictly provable.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I guess if you're talking about particular miracles or things like Angels there's no scientific proof for anything like that. What I was talking about were the scientific miracles of the Quran that don't necessarily require any kind of faith to see that there's something to them.

I think Wibbs and Schuhart may have misunderstood my posts a bit and I feel that we're getting into the "going round in circles" zone as well as going massively off-topic Just quickly, there is definitely not supposed to be an "us and them" attitude.

As InFront said, I don't mean to deny anyone else their religion. If a Christian, Jew or other religion prays to God then we believe that God listens to them. As for their situation on the day of judgement, that's between God and each individual. No Muslim can ever say that "so-and-so is definitely going to hell because they didn't die a Muslim". As a Muslim, we believe that only God really knows if someone truly rejected Islam or not.

Wibbs wrote:

the_new_mr wrote:

Personally speaking, I feel that most Muslims are happy to follow their faith because their faith doesn't have to be blind faith. The miracles of the Quran help to strengthen the faith of those who believe.

If you believe those are miracles in the first place. You accept they must be because they're in your holy book.

I just wanted to point out that I didn't mean a miracle such as when Moses (peace be upon him) split the red sea or when Jesus (peace be upon him) could heal people (both are miracles believed in Islam). I was talking about the scientific miracles that show evidence of the truth. I know we've disagreed about this before (at length) so we can just agree to disagree then

And when I said "Human beings need religion in some way, shape or form. Humans want a purpose", I meant to stress on the idea of purpose. People want to feel they are living for something. Maybe (in addition to what I already mentioned) it's their kids, their favourite sport or football team, their hobby, whatever. That's all I meant and I think it was misunderstood a bit.

Maybe now we can either let the thread go quiet or return back to topic.

Wibbs

InFront wrote:

If Hobbes will excuse me, and whilst not being able to speak for him or supposing to, I dont think he is denying other religions their beliefs. Such is their free choice.

I dunno if Hobbes will excuse you for confusing me and him. Ah well he seems the forgiving sort.:D

But for every Muslim, his faith is central to his existence, to his community, family, his mind and to his personal life. Being so enveloped in your faith fastens and reinforces it. I agree with his assertion that Muslims 'know' they are right, but to say that is not to be arrogant, for being arrogant alludes to superiority and authority on God. I do not observe such pretences but rather 'know' I am right because what I suppose to be right works and living my life by the Quran convinces me of God.

If you change Islam for Christianity and Quran for Gospel, that could be a statement from a Christian, or indeed any other faith. That's the central point. Maybe I'm picking it up wrong, but it kinda reinforces a certain mindset(common to all faiths) that considers their path the only path(naturally). the most dangerous man is one who is convinced he's right, especially if backed by his God. Christian abortionist killers in the US a good example.

I just wanted to point out that I didn't mean a miracle such as when Moses (peace be upon him) split the red sea or when Jesus (peace be upon him) could heal people (both are miracles believed in Islam). I was talking about the scientific miracles that show evidence of the truth. I know we've disagreed about this before (at length) so we can just agree to disagree then

Oh yea, back and forth we went . My point was that you already believe, so the "miracles" reinforce that belief, not the other way round. As I pointed out in our other rant one scientist who it seems supported said miracles, didn't change his faith. Faith is the starting point.

And when I said "Human beings need religion in some way, shape or form. Humans want a purpose", I meant to stress on the idea of purpose. People want to feel they are living for something. Maybe (in addition to what I already mentioned) it's their kids, their favourite sport or football team, their hobby, whatever. That's all I meant and I think it was misunderstood a bit.

OK, I get where you're coming from now(makes a nice change).

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

I think Wibbs and Schuhart may have misunderstood my posts a bit and I feel that we're getting into the "going round in circles" zone as well as going massively off-topic

Indeed. I think its clear that you understand that, say, a devout Catholic will equally maintain that his is the one true faith. That does not mean that that he or you do not respect the beliefs of others, just that you each have confidence in your own faith.

On the main point, unless I'm losing the plot, I think we have pretty much agreed that eduction is not the determinant of devotion. Plenty of educated people believe in mainstream religions. The question of whether those religions are valid is for another day (or thread).

Schuhart

Apologies. Just when I thought I’d said my last, I came across this link on another thread which changes my perspective a little.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html
The nations with the highest degrees of organic atheism (atheism which is not state-enforced through totalitarian regimes but emerges naturally among free societies) include most of the nations of Europe, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. There also exist high degrees of atheism in Japan, Vietnam, North Korea, and Taiwan. Many former Soviet nations, such as Estonia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus also contain significant levels of atheism.
Atheism is virtually non-existent in much of the world, however, especially among the most populated nations of Africa, South America, the Middle East, and much of Asia. High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality.
Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe, atheism is growing. However, throughout much of the world – particularly nations with high birth rates – atheism is barely discernable.

Clearly some educated people may have faith, and some uneducated people may be atheistic in outlook.

But it would look reasonable to say religious practice is associated with places where poverty and lack of education are common, while more wealthy societies with high levels of education are more associated with atheism. This doesn’t, of course, mean that low levels of education are the cause of religious practice. It just strongly suggests there is a significant link between the two things.

I suppose it also might suggest that the decision to trust to faith becomes progressively more difficult for educated people. Put bluntly, your average Irish Roman Catholic in 1930 didn’t have much to disturb their thinking, or to suggest that believing that someone might be raised up body and soul into heaven was just a little unlikely. That’s not to say that religious faith is not possible for highly educated and enquiring minds – we’ve seen that it is. Its just that someone of limited education will have less awareness of the need to make a leap of faith.