What Best Debunks Religion: Studying Science Or the Humanities?
Science steadily but effectively acts as a corrosive to religion. That's why we must insist our students become more scientifically literate. But a recent study done by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research shows that what produces the most religious skepticism among college students is when they study the social sciences.
Link. To see the news release see this, where we read:
In other words, humanities and social sciences, much more than biological and mathematical sciences, challenge you to imagine the world though the eyes of others. And this exercise in imagination undercuts religious dogma far more effectively than any science lesson can.What we learn is that
...both the Humanities and the Social Sciences see dramatic declines in attendance and even more in religious beliefs....I suspect that broadening world views is the major reason these students lose their faith.The Univ. of Michigan study concludes: "Our results suggest that it is Postmodernism, not Science, that is the bête noir of religiosity."
Link. To see the news release see this, where we read:
College students who major in the social sciences and humanities are likely to become less religious, while those majoring in education are likely to become more religious.HT: Ken Pulliam
But students majoring in biology and physical sciences remain just about as religious as they were when they started college.
27 comments:
I remember taking anthropology and learning about the shamans in various South American tribal cultures. Their purpose within the group was to be a conduit into the spirit world and to relay the will of the gods to the rest of the community. I asked my professor if the Pope could be considered a shaman. After some discussion, we decided that Pope was indeed more or less like a shaman, just with a much bigger tribe!
I think the humanities are best for helping people realize that no one religion can be "The Truth" (dogma). All religions function in more or less the same way and serve more or less the same purpose in their members' lives. Whatever your religion is, it's not any more "right" than anyone else's.
I've seen this personally. While working on a degree in Comparative Literature, child announced "not a Christian." Also went abroad for a year. It fits.
I can personally vouch for the disastrous effect the study of social sciences can have on religious belief. I was a devout Christian who majored in Psychology and minored in Sociology. I had doubts that I'd managed to squelch for some time. It was while I was taking a class on Myth and Culture (with heavy emphasis on the writings of Joseph Campbell) that I realized I could no longer ignore my doubts and that I had lost my faith.
I am currently a History major and, through History, I was able to learn "the truth" about religions. I suppose it wouldn't surprise anyone that religions have a greater political agenda than spiritual? It is extremely apparent that since the dawn of time, religious leaders and scholars have been abusing religion to fool the masses. More importantly, the basis of History would be evaluating the reliability of a source, in helping us learn about a civilization... For all the reasons that we already know of, the Bible definitely isn't a reliable source of information.
I have to agree with Leah that humanities allow us to realize that no one religion can be the one and true religion of God... Especially when you encounter so many different civilizations throughout your years of study; each with different beliefs.
In the end, I think the Sciences, Social Sciences or Humanities does a wonderful job at debunking religion... For the simple reason that these areas of studies are normally progressive, empirical, tentative, self-correcting... Everything that religion isn't.
Me, I've been an atheist since I was about 10 (~40 years now) and had decided that I had enough information to make a choice. And although I have only taken the minimum number of HUM classes to graduate with a bachelor's degree in engineering, I think the urge to KNOW verifiable truths scientifically was more a product of the atheism for me, not the other way around.
So I can't say if studying one or the other would be more devastating to religion.
P.S. Nice icon, Buffy!
:o)
Social sciences rely heavily on "induction" rather than direct observation which is falsifiable or deduction which is 100% when properly applied.
It is through induction that we employ Assumptions + Observation = Interpretation or Conclusion.
When induction that is open to error sets for a system of interpretation, this can lead to pseudo conclusions built upon theory after theory which appear to make sense (but usually fall apart when you apply deduction and current positive observation).
Until you dissect these inductions and see how they are being used as a system of interpretation...but historically and scientifically.. it is very difficult for you to believe anything else.
Question everything...particularly systems built on induction and defining the empirical world independent of the Infinite Creator (naturalism/materialism which is based upon aw-theistic circular assumptions which define the empirical world which we see).
"but historically and scientifically"
should have been "both" not 'but'
"Question everything, especially systems of thought, that I disagree with."
Seriously, Breckmin. That is what you are really saying here, if you really understood what it was that you were talking about.
Science is not, nor has it ever been, predicated on the idea of a universe (not just a world) independent of a creator. What science *is* predicated on, however, is figuring out how things work, and as we figure this out more and more, we find less and less need to attribute the workings of the universe to barbaric, vindictive bronze and stone age gods. We have also learned, quite clearly in fact, that the world most definitely does not work the way that religions claim. Even Augustine (who said quite a number of kooky things) actually managed to figure that out. Why haven't you figured that out?
Breckmin said.."When induction that is open to error sets for a system of interpretation, this can lead to pseudo conclusions built upon theory after theory which appear to make sense (but usually fall apart when you apply deduction and current positive observation)."
Whoa whoa ...whoa ! Breckmin ,were you describing the past guesswork of all the many god faiths?.Talk about theory after theory, and these days through the onset of modern knowledge, they no longer tend to even make any sense
Breckmin, since you have a bad habit of not returning to or commenting on a post that is not current, I’d like to ask you now and here:
Just how in the universe can you deny that God never wanted nor accepted human sacrifice only to turn right around and contradict yourself 180 degrees by saying Jesus was a perfect human sacrifice now fully accepted by God to forgive all humanity of their sins!
Thus, according to you, Breckmin, God only hates human sacrifice in the Old Testament, but must have it in the New Testament or he will / may burn humanity eternally in Hell because there is no forgiveness for sin!
Please! It’s time for a major reality check on your part!
You can respond by addressing my replies to you on the May 16 posts: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
Harry
Hello, everyone. As my name suggests, I am a Christian and have some things to say, as long as I am welcome. I have absolutely no intentions of being "religious" or claiming supiriority, but I do believe you (collectively refering to atheists/agnostics) are mistaken (just as I'm sure you believe I am mistaken.) The reason I am hear is not to rub religion in anyone's face, but to try to have an intellegent conversation. If I am welcome here, than I would like to note that I am a History major and also an active Christian. The idea that the humanities debunk Christianity, in my mind, is not an acurate one. For example, if you study Socrates, Plato, Aerostotatle, and many other Philosophers, you see that they all agreed upon the existance of God, in fact, the very idea of theoretical atheism is very recent (only immerging in the mid 19th century.) Again, I do not want to offend or upset anyone, but would like to have conversation.
As a dyed-in-the-wool scientist, I have to say I'm a wee bit disappointed that it's the softie woolly humanities that score best in this ;-)
Just kidding of course - actually this does ring a bit of a bell. In science, I was able to fully accept evolution (even a non-theistic "theistic" evolution if you can get your head round that) and argue forcefully within Christian circles against creationism. But it was historical study that led me to atheism - particularly the realisation that the much-vaunted apologetic basis for the resurrection (which is after all the central issue according to Saul Paulus) is a complete mirage.
Indeed, a historical approach to the gospels - treating them as historical documents, as the apologists keep bleating at us to do! - pretty much *proves* that there was no actual resurrection. What historians do is compare documents, and even though I had read the gospels many many times, I had never consciously set them side-by-side and analysed the commonalities and differences.
This compare and contrast approach is actually very scientific, but then I do regard history as having a lot to do with the scientific method. It is spectacularly clear when you do this that the gospel writers post-Mark had *no* idea what had happened, and were tagging on hearsay and dogma. Matthew is a priceless example - it is peppered with embellishments and sexing-up of Mark, and inadvertently drops the clanger of what actually happened to Jesus's body - some of his followers took it from the temporary grave for definitive burial in Galilee.
So hats off to the Humanities - is this a victory for post-modernism? I hope not - I think PoMo is a load of nonsense, although there are a couple of nuggets of sense buried in there. What changes is not truth, but our knowledge of truth. The only way to enhance that is by rigorous critical thinking, and cutting out the bunk.
As Aerostotatle might have said ;-)
"Aerostotatle"...
LOL
Should change your name to "SavedBySpellCheckIfIEverWouldUseIt"...
LOL
:o)
Shane said,
"...This compare and contrast approach is actually very scientific, but then I do regard history as having a lot to do with the scientific method. It is spectacularly clear when you do this that the gospel writers post-Mark had *no* idea what had happened, and were tagging on hearsay and dogma. Matthew is a priceless example - it is peppered with embellishments and sexing-up of Mark, and inadvertently drops the clanger of what actually happened to Jesus's body - some of his followers took it from the temporary grave for definitive burial in Galilee."
Another good one I like to point out is Luke1:1-2, where he BEGINS his gospel account by admitting that his information is at best hearsay because he's not an eyewitness himself.
Challenge THAT, Christians!
My undergraduate major was cultural anthropology focused in comparative religion at a secular university.
My studies did not at all destroy my faith in Jesus Christ, but in the long run helped to deepen, and enhance it.
I think it is a mistake for people of faith to try to repress, and run away from doubt.
Instead we need to embrace honest doubt, as an aspect of healthy faith, and open ourselves to God to show us truth.
We're all works in process.
I certainly think that there is some truth in all religions, and philosophies. All truth is God's truth regardless of where it's found, but, of course, this is not the same as believing that all paths are equally true, either.
If as a Christian I think that all "salvation," so to speak is in God's work in Christ, it doesn't logically, and necessarily follow that all people apart from conscious faith are going to Hell, or that I'm unable to find any common ground at all with an adherent of Mahayana Buddhism, or Wicca.
Grace said,
"...If as a Christian I think that all "salvation," so to speak is in God's work in Christ, it doesn't logically, and necessarily follow that all people apart from conscious faith are going to Hell, or that I'm unable to find any common ground at all with an adherent of Mahayana Buddhism, or Wicca."
That's a noble, but mushy and ultra-liberal interpretation that flies in the face of much of what's written in the new testament.
See John 3:16, and John 14:6 for starters, and then most of the Pauline epistles for the main course.
SavedbyGrace said.."If I am welcome here, than I would like to note that I am a History major and also an active Christian. The idea that the humanities debunk Christianity, in my mind, is not an acurate one. For example, if you study Socrates, Plato, Aerostotatle, and many other Philosophers, you see that they all agreed upon the existance of God, in fact, the very idea of theoretical atheism is very recent (only immerging in the mid 19th century.) Again, I do not want to offend or upset anyone, but would like to have conversation."
Hi Savedbygrace.I for one welcome you here.Its the faiths i dislike ,not so much those that are the faithful.
Did you ever consider that maybe because Socrates, Plato and Aristotle lived in very ancient times,its not really so very surprising they all agreed upon the existance of God.
After all back in them days gods were often considdered to throw killer lightning bolts at certain people,ancient man had not yet learned much about the science of how lightning happened.Gods were often thought to be involved in creating tsunamis that killed people,folks back then didnt know undersea earthquakes caused them.And gods were often thought to punish man with earthquakes,folks back then didnt realize there was actually plate tectonic movement happening under the earths crust.Many folks back then likely still thought god-/s were involved in controling weather patterns that brought the rain or drought that then altered the availability of crops and created either feast or famine.Many ancient folks still didnt fully understand sickness,many still thought maybe flues and viruses etc, were just angry god-/s way of cursing sinful humans he created.
So Savedbygrace, its not really so surprising is it,that these ancient early master Philosophers still felt maybe god-/s existed.Back then how could they yet understand the human mind was actually very likely simply just trying to find ways to try and make sense and understand many things they saw happening around them, and so had simply placed God-/s in the gaps where ever any knowledge was still lacking.
They themselves were also stuck without the knowledge needed, to see what was happening.Without knowing tectonic plates existed,what else could they conclude also? but that maybe human thought at that time was actually right/scientific ....That yes, god-/s actually very likely existed and caused earthquakes that killed people
These famous philosophers of old are kind of like Darwin is still thought famous about many matters of evolution.Sure maybe they never yet quite understood everything or got everything correct,but they are still famous! and us modern day humans still owe a lots of our knowledge to what they learned way back then and passed on to us.
Another point worth raising is that while Pluto, Arsetickle and Sockratties may have "believed" in the gods, they couldn't advance any particularly cogent arguments to support the *existence* of the gods - most people back then (as now) just accepted gods as a given. That all had to await, of all people, Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages, who actually tried to make some arguments to prove that a god existed: his "Five Ways". For the time this was actually pretty impressive, and Aquinas was certainly a towering intellect of the time. However, we scientists stand on the shoulders of giants, and occasionally that means we have to shit on them too - Aquinas's arguments are now recognised as deeply flawed. But a jolly good effort all the same. The Reformation was built to a large degree on Aquinas, and Freethought and Atheism are largely built on the Reformation (controversial point, I know ;-)
Bizarrely, I have heard some *modern* apologists for theism assert that the New Atheists have not adequately dealt with Aquinas. That's a bit like saying that the New Astronomers have not adequately dealt with flat earth theory. The game has moved on. Tommy is a matter of historical interest now. Philosophers need to know when to put their old toys back in their boxes!
Hi, Gear.
I'm honestly not particularly liberal. Of course, I suppose that that term is relative, but I don't view myself as theologically progressive.
In my denomination, what I'm sharing is very much in the mainstream of the thinking of the church.
Of course, not all Christians will agree, and we don't always interpret Scripture, or the tradition of the church in exactly the same way.
Grace,
I admit I was a little stern with your position. From what you stated, I'm guessing either a moderate Protestant or non-denominational faith?
I've seen the same general phenomenon in college. However, I don't think that it's the nature of the social sciences that makes people leave the church, but the nature of the people who take the social sciences.
I've noticed that emotionally driven arguments against God's existence are very effective. I have also noticed that people who major in the social sciences are more likely to be influenced by emotions than those in the hard sciences. So, it sort of makes sense to see more apostates in the social sciences than in the hard sciences.
I've seen far more people leave Christianity for emotional reasons than purely rational reasons. For example, I've never seen someone actually look at the tea-pot argument or flying-spaghetti monster argument and give up their religion, which is strange to me because I actually believe that these are the best arguments against God. However, I've seen plenty of people lose their religion over the problem of evil or some personal trauma -- I consider the problem of evil an emotionally driven argument.
It's just a hypothesis of mine. I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Gear, I'm an Episcopalian. Although, I currently attend a church affiliated with "The Vineyard," with my husband.
I think I"m pretty classically orthodox, and evangelical in the faith, a pretty bog-standard follower of Jesus Christ.
But, what about yourself, Gear?
Do you have a church background?
Have to agree that people who major in the social sciences tend to be more emotionally driven.
I'm definitely more a touchy feely, Golden Retriever type personality, and even as a young person really struggled with how a good, and loving God can allow suffering.
My favorite expression, "And, how does that make you feel?" LOL
Grace,
My parents started attending church when I was already about 10 yrs old and had developed some basic critical thinking skills. As a matter of fact, I was baptised in an Episcopalian church when I was just short of 11 years old, and I remember the event.
As for my decision to become an atheist? I weighed the claims of Christianity as presented in the Bible against my personal experience of the world, and I said to myself, "Self, the world doesn't work the way they claim in the Bible." And that was that.
I've never experienced anything that has convinced me that my decision was mistaken, and I'm pushing 50 now.
I attended church with my mother (she insisted, even though I informed her of my opinions) as long as I lived with her. I joined the army at age 22. Between my baptism and leaving for the army, I attended catechism, was confirmed, served as an altar boy (was never molested or even approached for such activity).
I read (pronounced like the color RED) the bible, and I encorage my kids (they're teenagers) to read it, too. They (naturally) want to adopt my atheism as their worldview, and engage Christians in debate like I do, but I discourage this UNLESS and UNTIL they study and understand the other side of the argument.
But enough about me.
I understand Episcopalianism probably better than any other sect, having nominally been one. I have described it to others when they asked (this happened a lot in the south) as "Catholic Lite": heavy on ritual and symbology, but without the Virgin Mary, the Inquisition, etc. As the Epicopal Church in America is descended from the Church of England, it's a fairly liberal group; founded on the premise of Henry VIII's desire to divorce one of his wives simply because she hadn't produced a male heir, liberal enough to have consecrated at least two known openly gay bishops, one of each gender. Those are some pretty liberal deeds for a church that mirrors Catholicism almost to a 'T'.
And the other charge of ultra-liberalism I made re: the inclusiveness you expressed is certainly NOT supported by a literal reading of the New Testament. This is also one of the reasons I refuse to participate in Christianity: that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of different Christian sects that all claim to be the "true beleivers".
To adhere to one branch and exclude the rest is arbitrary and absurd. And to preach diversity and inclusiveness is mostly done in an effort to boost attendance and fill the collection plates.
I don't know, Gear. I think the Episcopal church's position concerning GLBT inclusion has really cost them some money, and memberships.
Hey, I"m not about to ditch any of my brothers, and sisters in Christ, whether they're Piskies :) or not.
To me, our unity in Christ is based around the gospel, not in total agreement with every doctrinal issue that comes down the pike.
I would consider the Nicene Creed of the church as a pretty basic statement of Christian faith. It seems to me consistent with the apostolic witness.
But, sounds like you feel pretty strongly, Gear. We'll have to agree to disagree. Think it's great, though, that you, and your kids like to dialogue with Christians.
"In other words, humanities and social sciences, much more than biological and mathematical sciences, challenge you to imagine the world though the eyes of others. And this exercise in imagination undercuts religious dogma far more effectively than any science lesson can."
I could have told you that fifty years ago.
I'd say based on this great blog and the work of Dr. Ken Pulliam, Robert M. Price and Dan Barker that the greatest enabler of atheism is religious studies.
Post a Comment