Human's Becoming Stupid?

[judgeposer]

100 years ago, in the United States, we were competitive with Europe in that a high school graduate knew as much, more or less, as a college graduate does now. It was free, of course, to get to that level of education, while in this day and age, you have to pay for it. A 12 year old was as educated as high school graduates are now. Stepping away from people 12-16 working, has made it necessary to waste four years of peak mental development for every American child. The optimal learning time for a child is from 6-12. 12 year olds should be ready to move into a modern college level environment. Also, the age-segregated educational level we use is a failure. Europe makes it work, but moves children along much faster. This general lack of education is what makes it seem like we're dumber. For instance, the percentage of Americans who believe in god, disbelieve in evolution, teen pregnancy rates, all connected with lack of education. Look up the percentage of Germans who participate in religion or believe in god, compared to Americans. Lack of education breeds belief in god. The religious right in America doesn't want us to be educated so it has more tithers.

As much as it pains me to agree with Eric on this point, I do...to a limited extent though. America's most recent religious experience seems over taken by an Evangelical disposition, which is not at ease with abstract or otherwise critical thought. An Evangelical Protestant, Mark Noll, some time ago wrote a brilliant review of this phenomenon, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, (see a reprisal here).

I'm not so sure we should generalize American's religiosity with our intellectual decline because I think the supposed decline might be overstated some and also, it doesn't account for the perennial presence of religion in America, through times of intellectual and economic dominance. While I know we're not saying that smart people don't believe in God, or that dumb people do, but merely that there's some correlation between intelligence and religious belief. For obvious reasons, of course, I am uncomfortable admitting to any causal relationship, especially since with things like teen pregnancy rates, we can more reasonably connect to impoverishment.

Just sayin...we should clarify these connections and keep necessarily connected phenomena separate from those that just happen to share similar traits.

[Mndgame]

Don't get me started about standardized testing. It's a good thing, but only if designed by the type of people we want the next generation to be as good as on average.

Instead we have mediocre people making these tests. I am not a well educated person...I can fake one though (got 95% or higher on all standardized tests from grade 3to high school...got a 1050 on my SAT, without studying for it or really giving a damn about it). That's also what's wrong with this system...thank god I have the ability to gather information about something very rapidly, otherwise I'd probably be as dumb as some of those folks out there.

Now.....how can a kid that had a 1.5 grade average like me, get a 1050 on the SAT? How could he get 95th percentile or higher in all standarized tests? The grades don't match the tests....and that's a sign of a severely broken system.

That "no child left behind" initiative was outright offensive...I had to work ma ass off to manage to graduate because I was honestly being a moron (and deserved to be left behind)....so in that manner I'm a fan of "all failing kids left the hell behind"

The thing is, success is not a teacher, success is a reward and failure is the teacher....without failures, without hardship, we never learn what we can really be. Now, do we want a bunch of mediocre people as our managers, our lawyers, our politicians, our doctors.....or do we want someone thats stared defeat right in the eye, laughed at it, then kicked it square in the nuts? I'd go for the latter myself.

I could go off on 50 tangents...I'll leave it here though. People need to keep learning after school though...it's that constant learning that keeps our minds razor-sharp, and that's what will separate us from the coffee-spillers.

I'm confused, why do you think standardized tests make mediocre people?


"how can a kid that had a 1.5 grade average like me, get a 1050 on the SAT? How could he get 95th percentile or higher in all standarized tests?"

A 1050 on the ACT is ~ the 6th percentile (You did better than 6% of people). Unless you took the ACT like 4 or 5 years ago whenever they changed it and then its like the 70th percentile not 95th.

I don't think differing GPA from test scores is a sign of a "severly broken system", since they are testing vastly different things. The SAT is testing how good you are at taking the SAT and not a whole lot more. Your GPA is testing how much effort you put into your classes. Just because you are lazy and don't do your homework doesn't necessarily mean you are bad at taking the SAT. I don't think such a test could be made that would produce similar scores on both and this why colleges look at both SAT/ACT and your GPA. Its very difficult to produce a test that measures something like effort put into classes.

[Mndgame]

100 years ago, in the United States, we were competitive with Europe in that a high school graduate knew as much, more or less, as a college graduate does now. It was free, of course, to get to that level of education, while in this day and age, you have to pay for it. A 12 year old was as educated as high school graduates are now. Stepping away from people 12-16 working, has made it necessary to waste four years of peak mental development for every American child. The optimal learning time for a child is from 6-12. 12 year olds should be ready to move into a modern college level environment. Also, the age-segregated educational level we use is a failure. Europe makes it work, but moves children along much faster. This general lack of education is what makes it seem like we're dumber. For instance, the percentage of Americans who believe in god, disbelieve in evolution, teen pregnancy rates, all connected with lack of education. Look up the percentage of Germans who participate in religion or believe in god, compared to Americans. Lack of education breeds belief in god. The religious right in America doesn't want us to be educated so it has more tithers.

I don't believe in God, but why do you think there is a connection between atheism and intellegence? I've met/know plenty of people who believe in God that are very intelligent, more intelligent than many atheists. Having faith in something doesn't make you stupid, some famous scientists Faraday, Newton, arguably Einstinen although he did not believe in a personal God were very religious. Rejecting all religious people or the believing in god as 'dumb' is narrow minded. I agree that not believing in evolution is too far though, as too much physical evidence exists. Same with the age of the earth. I don't know why German is your ideal model, but I'm not sure how much it has to do with religion. Their schooling is much better than ours. Much more intense and divided into multiple schools depending on how you test when you're young.

[Sherwood]

100 years ago, in the United States, we were competitive with Europe ... Europe makes it work...

"Europe" is not some monolithic institution, much as the EU briefs would have you believe. The education system in Germany differs greatly from, say, Moldova.

There are certain aspects of a western European education that the US might do well to emulate, sure. There are also numerous drawbacks.

As to the religious aspect of your argument, it's extremely insulting and poorly constructed. Do you wager you can show a causal correlation, or even a non-causal relationship, between education and belief in God? I suspect you'll be hard pressed. Moreover, the halcyon education system of 100 years ago you so revere was dominated almost entirely by religion. Self-professed rates of belief across the entire population of the country were over 90%

[Sonthert]

Church attendance and "belief in god" in the United States has been on the increase decade, by decade.

The more education a person has, the less likely they are to be religious or believe in god. Don't believe me, look up statistics.

Also, Jason, I think that education level is the primary correlation in teenage pregnancy. Thats what I remember from sociology, anyways. The poorer somebody is, the less educated they are on average. If you look at the rates of religious attendance, its been on the rise...a lot. There are other things that can explain part of it, but in general terms, without religious belief, religious attendance doesn't make any sense, so if my assertion is true, then belief in god is up. I wouldn't say its the causative factor, but its a contributing factor. People want answers to questions, if they aren't educated because our system is failing, they still want answers and religion provides easy answers for people. Science doesn't, of course, provide answers to really juicy questions, but religion does, even if the answer is "god", "You'll find out after you die" or "faith".

As to the other two contributors, before there was modern science and education, mysticism was where people got their answers from. Science began to supplant elements of religion and belief in god. It still remains true today. Look at the average education level of atheists/agnostics...higher than average. Check out the statistics, if you don't believe it, like I said. As for insulting, I can't help that. Faith is the process that people believe in god by. Faith is the suspension of reason or logic. Reason and logic are improved and developed by education. There are a number of educated religious people, but that doesn't prove that the average educational level of religious people is lower than that of non-religious people...or atheists. If you don't like it, change religions or go back to school.

If you believe that there is no god, you are less likely to put up with what you are told to by religion and improve your life on your own terms, not reveling in the idea of an eternity in heaven. Education is the main way people improve their lives. Religion is the substitute for education. Religious? You don't need science or education...god is the answer to all questions. If you have god, you don't need other answers, you don't need education. Some people choose both, but rare is the person who chooses neither. I wouldn't suggest a direct causation, I suggested its a part of the picture.

Please note, to the two of you offended types, Jason is highly educated and extremely religious and formerly in seminary. He understood what I was saying and agreed with part of it, and didn't refute the rest of it. To the first offended person. I said:

For instance, the percentage of Americans who believe in god, disbelieve in evolution, teen pregnancy rates, all connected with lack of education.

You said:

I don't believe in God, but why do you think there is a connection between atheism and intellegence?

First off, you misspelled intelligence.
Second off, reread what I said. Intelligence is not education. Why you're running off in a hissy fit after misreading/misinterpreting what I said, I don't know.
Third Off, just read on, I'll address your point...

To the second offended person,
You said:

As to the religious aspect of your argument, it's extremely insulting and poorly constructed. Do you wager you can show a causal correlation, or even a non-causal relationship, between education and belief in God?

I did just demonstrate a non-causal relationship between religious belief being suggested by lower levels of education.

You then said:

Moreover, the halcyon education system of 100 years ago you so revere was dominated almost entirely by religion. Self-professed rates of belief across the entire population of the country were over 90%

You should check those. Its on the increase, and its still only around 75%. The huge increase started in the 1950s. Thats coincidentally when "One nation, under god." was added to the pledge of allegiance and "In god we trust." was put on currency in the United States. Additionally, until the 1950s or so, religion was not permitted on government property. You couldn't say god or Jesus on the radio or TV or in classrooms, so I think your argument is specious and incorrect at best. I believe we were talking about public education. I think,but I'm not sure, but I would wager that the percentage of children educated at public schools was higher in relation to private (religious) schools 100 years ago than it is now. Which would further refute your assertion. If you want to claim that anything other than a small minority of children are educated by private schools in the United States, I'd like to see your statistics. That being the case, the public educational system's failure is more important in the overall picture of the failing of the United States Educational system. On the par, religious private schools are better than public schools in the United States today, so I don't think that's the problem and you are diverting the issue if thats your assertion. If its true that atheists are more educated than average, it would follow that people who believe in god are below average in education. Thats the nature of statistics. Look at the rates of atheism in specific Europe and compare them to the education in that country. Look at the pattern. So how else was my argument flawed?

In the EU, the percentage of people that believe in a god is 52%. The rate is 65% for people who left school by age 15. The rate of atheism and agnosticism in France is 64%, France having an excellent educational system. The National Academy of Sciences has only a 7% rate of people who believe in a god or in an afterlife. Presumably, these people that make up the NAS are highly educated. The US population is 85%. Who are below average in terms of world educational levels. That rate, in the United States, drops to 64% for people with college degrees. 39 studies carried out in the past 70-some years have demonstrated, universally, that there is an inverse relationship between educational level and religious belief.

I didn't make the point regarding intelligence and religious belief, nor would I, because intelligence is something people can't help that much. Nonetheless, there are studies that show a negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief. Another reason I wouldn't make the point is because I don't believe that intelligence can be objectively quantified or measured.

To the second "offended" person, again you said:

Do you wager you can show a causal correlation, or even a non-causal relationship, between education and belief in God? I suspect you'll be hard pressed.

Looks like I just did, wasn't hard-pressed at all. In fact, I didn't even have to work at it.

[Sonthert]

Oh, and one more point, I mentioned Germany because the American education system is based on the German system of education.

[Bye bye now have fun]

just because there is a relationship doesnt mean that its cause and effect. we were going over this in class to week out false causes for events. example, 95% of people that commit drivebys ate cereal for breakfast. just because that happens doesnt mean it causes it. it could also be that 90% are in gangs that had a fight with another gang in the last week. the stronger the correlation the strong the possible cause is but not aways. thankfully bayes came around to help us out sort of. but we still have to make common sense. believing in god and actively and regularly participating in organized religion that is anti intellectual are two different things. i belive that they is a god but also realized that the bible is a hodgepoge of what they want you to read and fallow. it also contradicts itself alot but as a whole its generally a good idea to follow the ideas as in the commandments sound like reasonable things to follow, so does helping others and taking down corruption. im not sure if my church was a normal church but they never once said that darwin was false or the earth was 6,000 years old. they also said not to have sex but if you were to use a condom. i guess we were more of a liberal church. i dont go anymore because i dont like what the catholic church did to religion and feel that it corrupted all the derivatives of it

[judgeposer]

I have interpolated my reply.

Church attendance and "belief in god" in the United States has been on the increase decade, by decade.

The more education a person has, the less likely they are to be religious or believe in god. Don't believe me, look up statistics.

Also, Jason, I think that education level is the primary correlation in teenage pregnancy. Thats what I remember from sociology, anyways. The poorer somebody is, the less educated they are on average. If you look at the rates of religious attendance, its been on the rise...a lot. There are other things that can explain part of it, but in general terms, without religious belief, religious attendance doesn't make any sense, so if my assertion is true, then belief in god is up. I wouldn't say its the causative factor, but its a contributing factor. People want answers to questions, if they aren't educated because our system is failing, they still want answers and religion provides easy answers for people. Science doesn't, of course, provide answers to really juicy questions, but religion does, even if the answer is "god", "You'll find out after you die" or "faith".

That teenage pregnancy point is inconsequential anyhow - but, I would definitely respect your memory, as education (or a lack of) seems a reasonable indicator of probable teenage pregnancy.

On causal, correlative, or contributing factors - indeed, perhaps then simply contributing. That's perfectly acceptable.

I think, however, the assertion that religion provides easy answers is somewhat fictive. I can't disagree that people, regardless of their education or "natural" intelligence, seek out religion to answer their unanswered questions because it might be for them the path of least resistance. My own (anecdotal) experience bears this out, for sure. At the risk of over-complexifying this point, however, I would offer that those who choose religion because it provides easy answers already have cognitive deficiencies or otherwise lazy intellects. I would say as a practicing Catholic, making me a member of a structured, doctrinally rich religion, one that places prominently the use of intellect and reason, also carries the obligation to live my life in a counter-cultural way, oftentimes directing me toward a path of increased resistance (at least with respect to our modern culture). I mean by this that while there are those who do use religion as a crutch or as their supply for easy answers, I think this speaks more towards their consumerist or otherwise intellectually lazy dispositions more than the nature of religious belief. Again, I cite the intellectually impoverished doctrines peddled by my coreligionist Evangelicals. This is not my simple or elitist assessment, but one shared by some notable non-mainline Protestants, like Mark Noll, who I cited in a previous post.

As to the other two contributors, before there was modern science and education, mysticism was where people got their answers from. Science began to supplant elements of religion and belief in god. It still remains true today. Look at the average education level of atheists/agnostics...higher than average. Check out the statistics, if you don't believe it, like I said. As for insulting, I can't help that. Faith is the process that people believe in god by. Faith is the suspension of reason or logic. Reason and logic are improved and developed by education. There are a number of educated religious people, but that doesn't prove that the average educational level of religious people is lower than that of non-religious people...or atheists. If you don't like it, change religions or go back to school.

If you believe that there is no god, you are less likely to put up with what you are told to by religion and improve your life on your own terms, not reveling in the idea of an eternity in heaven. Education is the main way people improve their lives. Religion is the substitute for education. Religious? You don't need science or education...god is the answer to all questions. If you have god, you don't need other answers, you don't need education. Some people choose both, but rare is the person who chooses neither. I wouldn't suggest a direct causation, I suggested its a part of the picture.

Eric, this isn't necessarily directed at you, but I think you might find the following interview interesting. It has little to do with your points, but I thought I'd share it because it features two well educated scientists, one a Jesuit priest, the other a notable biologist, discussing evolution. If you have the time, watch it. Perhaps we can get a discussion going on another thread about it: (Fr. Coyne and Richard Dawkins) http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=richar...amp;query=coyne

Please note, to the two of you offended types, Jason is highly educated and extremely religious and formerly in seminary. He understood what I was saying and agreed with part of it, and didn't refute the rest of it.

I'm outed! Haha...(but guilty as charged) I think it sometimes pains us to know that we're among less than attractive company. Eric, your assertions, particularly those accompanied by statistics, I found unsettling, but more reasonable than not. As a religious person, I have to admit readily that I share company with some other religious-minded folks who peddle unreasonable stuff, for the lack of a better word. I can't take offense when some lump me with those who share beliefs, but I can at least distinguish why I hold those beliefs from some others who do too but perhaps less reasonably.

Another reason I wouldn't make the point is because I don't believe that intelligence can be objectively quantified or measured.

No?

[Sonthert]

Gnu: I said:

For instance, the percentage of Americans who believe in god, disbelieve in evolution, teen pregnancy rates, all connected with lack of education.

A correlation is indeed a connection. Your points are otherwise reasonable, except, you don't need religion to "help others or take down corruption.". Religion doesn't hold a monopoly on the item.

Jason:
I would still assert that there is a anti-intellectual or anti-education element in many religions. It doesn't imply that any religious person is uneducated. I think your first point more or less agrees with my points, and merely amplifies them.

No, I don't think intelligence can be objectively quantified. Take for instance IQ tests designed for African-Americans. Whites seem dumb, blacks smarter using that IQ test. Can we separate intelligence from education and experience? I would say not.


Of course, saying there is a causation is dishonest. Going back to Europe, Italians are more or less as educated as the French, and they border each other and have a similar history, yet the numbers are turned upside down in terms of believing in god. There is an inverse relationship between educational level and belief in god. I said there was a connection, that America holds these characteristics and that we're perceived less educated...honestly, when somebody tells me they believe in god, I say to myself something along the lines of "Really? Thats just silly." It would be similar to believing in the Easter Bunny, in my way of thinking. I have a high level of respect for religion in terms of atheists, too. A lot of atheists I know just regard people who believe in god as backwater, ignorant, and/or uneducated. They would say "How can reasonably intelligent believe in such nonsense?" My father would have something like that, to be sure. On the other hand, religious people don't say "You don't believe in god? How can you be so ignorant/uneducated?" The very notion if atheism is generally associated with intellectualism or education. I've heard weirdo religious people, talking about how to talk to people about god talk about "getting around people's logic or reason, circumventing it." Which implies a lot.

[Mndgame]

Church attendance and "belief in god" in the United States has been on the increase decade, by decade.

The more education a person has, the less likely they are to be religious or believe in god. Don't believe me, look up statistics.

Also, Jason, I think that education level is the primary correlation in teenage pregnancy. Thats what I remember from sociology, anyways. The poorer somebody is, the less educated they are on average. If you look at the rates of religious attendance, its been on the rise...a lot. There are other things that can explain part of it, but in general terms, without religious belief, religious attendance doesn't make any sense, so if my assertion is true, then belief in god is up. I wouldn't say its the causative factor, but its a contributing factor. People want answers to questions, if they aren't educated because our system is failing, they still want answers and religion provides easy answers for people. Science doesn't, of course, provide answers to really juicy questions, but religion does, even if the answer is "god", "You'll find out after you die" or "faith".

As to the other two contributors, before there was modern science and education, mysticism was where people got their answers from. Science began to supplant elements of religion and belief in god. It still remains true today. Look at the average education level of atheists/agnostics...higher than average. Check out the statistics, if you don't believe it, like I said. As for insulting, I can't help that. Faith is the process that people believe in god by. Faith is the suspension of reason or logic. Reason and logic are improved and developed by education. There are a number of educated religious people, but that doesn't prove that the average educational level of religious people is lower than that of non-religious people...or atheists. If you don't like it, change religions or go back to school.

If you believe that there is no god, you are less likely to put up with what you are told to by religion and improve your life on your own terms, not reveling in the idea of an eternity in heaven. Education is the main way people improve their lives. Religion is the substitute for education. Religious? You don't need science or education...god is the answer to all questions. If you have god, you don't need other answers, you don't need education. Some people choose both, but rare is the person who chooses neither. I wouldn't suggest a direct causation, I suggested its a part of the picture.

Please note, to the two of you offended types, Jason is highly educated and extremely religious and formerly in seminary. He understood what I was saying and agreed with part of it, and didn't refute the rest of it. To the first offended person. I said:

For instance, the percentage of Americans who believe in god, disbelieve in evolution, teen pregnancy rates, all connected with lack of education.

You said:

I don't believe in God, but why do you think there is a connection between atheism and intellegence?

First off, you misspelled intelligence.
Second off, reread what I said. Intelligence is not education. Why you're running off in a hissy fit after misreading/misinterpreting what I said, I don't know.
Third Off, just read on, I'll address your point...

To the second offended person,
You said:

As to the religious aspect of your argument, it's extremely insulting and poorly constructed. Do you wager you can show a causal correlation, or even a non-causal relationship, between education and belief in God?

I did just demonstrate a non-causal relationship between religious belief being suggested by lower levels of education.

You then said:

Moreover, the halcyon education system of 100 years ago you so revere was dominated almost entirely by religion. Self-professed rates of belief across the entire population of the country were over 90%

You should check those. Its on the increase, and its still only around 75%. The huge increase started in the 1950s. Thats coincidentally when "One nation, under god." was added to the pledge of allegiance and "In god we trust." was put on currency in the United States. Additionally, until the 1950s or so, religion was not permitted on government property. You couldn't say god or Jesus on the radio or TV or in classrooms, so I think your argument is specious and incorrect at best. I believe we were talking about public education. I think,but I'm not sure, but I would wager that the percentage of children educated at public schools was higher in relation to private (religious) schools 100 years ago than it is now. Which would further refute your assertion. If you want to claim that anything other than a small minority of children are educated by private schools in the United States, I'd like to see your statistics. That being the case, the public educational system's failure is more important in the overall picture of the failing of the United States Educational system. On the par, religious private schools are better than public schools in the United States today, so I don't think that's the problem and you are diverting the issue if thats your assertion. If its true that atheists are more educated than average, it would follow that people who believe in god are below average in education. Thats the nature of statistics. Look at the rates of atheism in specific Europe and compare them to the education in that country. Look at the pattern. So how else was my argument flawed?

In the EU, the percentage of people that believe in a god is 52%. The rate is 65% for people who left school by age 15. The rate of atheism and agnosticism in France is 64%, France having an excellent educational system. The National Academy of Sciences has only a 7% rate of people who believe in a god or in an afterlife. Presumably, these people that make up the NAS are highly educated. The US population is 85%. Who are below average in terms of world educational levels. That rate, in the United States, drops to 64% for people with college degrees. 39 studies carried out in the past 70-some years have demonstrated, universally, that there is an inverse relationship between educational level and religious belief.

I didn't make the point regarding intelligence and religious belief, nor would I, because intelligence is something people can't help that much. Nonetheless, there are studies that show a negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief. Another reason I wouldn't make the point is because I don't believe that intelligence can be objectively quantified or measured.

To the second "offended" person, again you said:

Do you wager you can show a causal correlation, or even a non-causal relationship, between education and belief in God? I suspect you'll be hard pressed.

Looks like I just did, wasn't hard-pressed at all. In fact, I didn't even have to work at it.

Yikes you didn't offend me and I don't think I threw a hissy fit by any measure? You're more protective of your beliefs than most religious people, no scrutiny/disagreeing allowed.

Anyways, responding to what you said.

"Intelligence is not education."

Here is what you said, "This general lack of education is what makes it seem like we're dumber."

I assumed that 'dumb' was a measure of intelligence, but I guess it was a measure of...?

The statistics I've found have shown some relationship between education level and religion but not as a dramatic as yours (Link). It shows the difference between high school and college grads is only 5%. Anyways correlation and causation are NOT the same thing. Obviously there are underlying factors/environments besides obtaining a degree that lead to the belief in God.

I agree with much of what your saying but you make sweeping claims and use extremes to validate your point. I'm currently completing my undergraduate in a hard science field and there are some people in my classes who believe in God, most don't including myself. However none of them pray for the answers on a test, in fact I don't know a SINGLE religious person who believes:

1)"Religion is the substitute for education. Religious? You don't need science or education."
2) "God is the answer to all questions."

I've never seen somebody go how does the polymerase chain reaction work? Well I'll pray for a while...and its come to me.
Most normal people substitute God for unanswerable questions like what happens when we die not for scientific questions.

"As to the other two contributors, before there was modern science and education, mysticism was where people got their answers from"

I agree with this because religion hugely impeded scientific knowledge and still is in some cases. For scientific questions, religion is NOT the answer. Zeus doesn't cause hurricanes and we know that, the physical world is no place for religious proof. Yes, there are religious people who believe crazy and similar things, but like I said none of the religious people I know claim explainable scientific events are acts of God or discard the existence of DNA because of God. Maybe I have too small of a sample size of people? Most of my family is Catholic excluding a few people and none of them have ever decided they don't need education because religion contains the answers to all.

Not doubting you but I'd like to see the statistics that show religion is "on the rise" over the last decades? I know atheism is on the rise and for religion to be on the rise as well there must be some third category besides not religious and religious. I didn't proof read since I'm posting on a hookah forum, so there is probably typos you'll point out those then claim I'm throwing another hissy fit for not completely agreeing with what you're saying, but its okay just stating my opinion .

[Sherwood]

Church attendance and "belief in god" in the United States has been on the increase decade, by decade.

In the EU, the percentage of people that believe in a god is 52%. The rate is 65% for people who left school by age 15. The rate of atheism and agnosticism in France is 64%, France having an excellent educational system. The National Academy of Sciences has only a 7% rate of people who believe in a god or in an afterlife. Presumably, these people that make up the NAS are highly educated. The US population is 85%. Who are below average in terms of world educational levels. That rate, in the United States, drops to 64% for people with college degrees. 39 studies carried out in the past 70-some years have demonstrated, universally, that there is an inverse relationship between educational level and religious belief.

Excellent post. If you'll allow, I'd like to rebut.

First off, incidentally, please don't consider me to be offended. I am definitely not. Not only are you entitled to your opinion, as is everyone, but you made a cogent and supported argument. I merely wanted to point out, hopefully to the benefit of all, that your phrasing would be considered offensive. Clearly we're on an internet forum here, and moreover being "offended" is such a knee-jerk response. I only say this since I don't have many posts on here, and none of you know me yet.

Regarding the substance of your post, I dig some digging as recommended. The link between education level and belief in God is easily seen, so you win there. I wouldn't attribute causality to it, necessarily, but neither do you.

Regarding the percentage of individuals professing belief in God, all the research I saw shows it as being consistently high. 94% of individuals polled in a '97 pew study claimed to believe in God, vs. 92% in 2007. That's not statistically significant, especially since it bounced up and down in the intervening years. I didn't see data for earlier years in my brief search.

It is interesting to note, however, two things. One is that women are 12% more likely to believe in God, but they're educated to a very similar level. Now, that wasn't always the case, but the numbers hold true with young women as well as older women, for whom the gender gap is supposedly less prominent. Causality isn't being bandied about, but if it were I hope this statistic would be enlightening.

Also, while belief in God remains high, actual professed adherence to a given faith is declining rapidly. Those identifying as "Christians" is down 11% from 1990 - 2001. Newer data may exist, but JSTOR has a 5 year cycle and nothing I found was done between 2001 and 2004.

I don't what what all these people who believe in God are thinking, by any means, but they're not thinking about an Abrahamic, monotheistic God.

So it would appear that both sides pretty much think the country is going to hell, so to speak.

[mustang_steve]

Don't get me started about standardized testing. It's a good thing, but only if designed by the type of people we want the next generation to be as good as on average.

Instead we have mediocre people making these tests. I am not a well educated person...I can fake one though (got 95% or higher on all standardized tests from grade 3to high school...got a 1050 on my SAT, without studying for it or really giving a damn about it). That's also what's wrong with this system...thank god I have the ability to gather information about something very rapidly, otherwise I'd probably be as dumb as some of those folks out there.

Now.....how can a kid that had a 1.5 grade average like me, get a 1050 on the SAT? How could he get 95th percentile or higher in all standarized tests? The grades don't match the tests....and that's a sign of a severely broken system.

That "no child left behind" initiative was outright offensive...I had to work ma ass off to manage to graduate because I was honestly being a moron (and deserved to be left behind)....so in that manner I'm a fan of "all failing kids left the hell behind"

The thing is, success is not a teacher, success is a reward and failure is the teacher....without failures, without hardship, we never learn what we can really be. Now, do we want a bunch of mediocre people as our managers, our lawyers, our politicians, our doctors.....or do we want someone thats stared defeat right in the eye, laughed at it, then kicked it square in the nuts? I'd go for the latter myself.

I could go off on 50 tangents...I'll leave it here though. People need to keep learning after school though...it's that constant learning that keeps our minds razor-sharp, and that's what will separate us from the coffee-spillers.

I'm confused, why do you think standardized tests make mediocre people?


"how can a kid that had a 1.5 grade average like me, get a 1050 on the SAT? How could he get 95th percentile or higher in all standarized tests?"

A 1050 on the ACT is ~ the 6th percentile (You did better than 6% of people). Unless you took the ACT like 4 or 5 years ago whenever they changed it and then its like the 70th percentile not 95th.

I don't think differing GPA from test scores is a sign of a "severly broken system", since they are testing vastly different things. The SAT is testing how good you are at taking the SAT and not a whole lot more. Your GPA is testing how much effort you put into your classes. Just because you are lazy and don't do your homework doesn't necessarily mean you are bad at taking the SAT. I don't think such a test could be made that would produce similar scores on both and this why colleges look at both SAT/ACT and your GPA. Its very difficult to produce a test that measures something like effort put into classes.

It's not the tests, it's the people designing the tests...a test is like any instructional material, only as good as the person making it. A nice person could never achieve the level of brutality a sick and warped individual could, much like how an average person could never develop a test as challenging as a more intelligent person.

I said SAT, not ACT, they are different tests (or at least were when I took it nearly 12 years ago).

The broken system is that grading scale is not based on what you learn, it's based on how hard you work. I've seen inept people pass because they simply did the homework....it's not hard to grasp most of education....mathmatics I understand can be a real pain in the ass, but the rest is simple memorization. This should not be busting anyone's ass.

Yes, I was one of those who just didn't do homework...I knew the stuff, I didn't see the point in proving it on a daily basis. I admit it was foolish. Either way, the point stands that an "educational" system should grade based on absorption of material....what does developing a worker mentailty have to do with one's understanding of biology, calculus, American history, or even art?

That's the problem.....we forgot that the primary task of education is to shove knowledge into the childrens skulls and instead are simply shaping their behavior patterns. WHen you do that, they will realize at a subconscious level that education is not as important as doing what's expected.

That's also fine and dandy except when the expectational bar keeps dropping...at which point we have a society that plays intellectual limbo. Not cool at all.

[Mndgame]

Don't get me started about standardized testing. It's a good thing, but only if designed by the type of people we want the next generation to be as good as on average.

Instead we have mediocre people making these tests. I am not a well educated person...I can fake one though (got 95% or higher on all standardized tests from grade 3to high school...got a 1050 on my SAT, without studying for it or really giving a damn about it). That's also what's wrong with this system...thank god I have the ability to gather information about something very rapidly, otherwise I'd probably be as dumb as some of those folks out there.

Now.....how can a kid that had a 1.5 grade average like me, get a 1050 on the SAT? How could he get 95th percentile or higher in all standarized tests? The grades don't match the tests....and that's a sign of a severely broken system.

That "no child left behind" initiative was outright offensive...I had to work ma ass off to manage to graduate because I was honestly being a moron (and deserved to be left behind)....so in that manner I'm a fan of "all failing kids left the hell behind"

The thing is, success is not a teacher, success is a reward and failure is the teacher....without failures, without hardship, we never learn what we can really be. Now, do we want a bunch of mediocre people as our managers, our lawyers, our politicians, our doctors.....or do we want someone thats stared defeat right in the eye, laughed at it, then kicked it square in the nuts? I'd go for the latter myself.

I could go off on 50 tangents...I'll leave it here though. People need to keep learning after school though...it's that constant learning that keeps our minds razor-sharp, and that's what will separate us from the coffee-spillers.

I'm confused, why do you think standardized tests make mediocre people?


"how can a kid that had a 1.5 grade average like me, get a 1050 on the SAT? How could he get 95th percentile or higher in all standarized tests?"

A 1050 on the ACT is ~ the 6th percentile (You did better than 6% of people). Unless you took the ACT like 4 or 5 years ago whenever they changed it and then its like the 70th percentile not 95th.

I don't think differing GPA from test scores is a sign of a "severly broken system", since they are testing vastly different things. The SAT is testing how good you are at taking the SAT and not a whole lot more. Your GPA is testing how much effort you put into your classes. Just because you are lazy and don't do your homework doesn't necessarily mean you are bad at taking the SAT. I don't think such a test could be made that would produce similar scores on both and this why colleges look at both SAT/ACT and your GPA. Its very difficult to produce a test that measures something like effort put into classes.

It's not the tests, it's the people designing the tests...a test is like any instructional material, only as good as the person making it. A nice person could never achieve the level of brutality a sick and warped individual could, much like how an average person could never develop a test as challenging as a more intelligent person.

I said SAT, not ACT, they are different tests (or at least were when I took it nearly 12 years ago).

The broken system is that grading scale is not based on what you learn, it's based on how hard you work. I've seen inept people pass because they simply did the homework....it's not hard to grasp most of education....mathmatics I understand can be a real pain in the ass, but the rest is simple memorization. This should not be busting anyone's ass.

Yes, I was one of those who just didn't do homework...I knew the stuff, I didn't see the point in proving it on a daily basis. I admit it was foolish. Either way, the point stands that an "educational" system should grade based on absorption of material....what does developing a worker mentailty have to do with one's understanding of biology, calculus, American history, or even art?

That's the problem.....we forgot that the primary task of education is to shove knowledge into the childrens skulls and instead are simply shaping their behavior patterns. WHen you do that, they will realize at a subconscious level that education is not as important as doing what's expected.

That's also fine and dandy except when the expectational bar keeps dropping...at which point we have a society that plays intellectual limbo. Not cool at all.

Sorry that was a typo, replace ACT with SAT in my post.

"The broken system is that grading scale is not based on what you learn, it's based on how hard you work."

I wouldn't say that it is completely broken. Even the smartest person has extreme limitations if they do not work and push themselves. Also, who would you rather hire an extremely hard worker or a lazy person who feels there is "no point in proving themselves daily" but may be inherently more gifted intellectually? I agree that it is biased towards hard working and that isn't necessarily how it should be but eventually working hard gets you somewhere, even if you aren't that smartest, I've seen it. It is hard to reward being smart if you aren't willing to work and show it.


"what does developing a worker mentailty have to do with one's understanding of biology, calculus, American history, or even art?"

Nothing I guess, but I'd say it shows maturity and passion for increasing/expanding knowledge which is pretty important.

If people think our elementary education system is that backwards and are indeed that intellectually talented/ahead then they should go to college early where you aren't generally graded on homework. Many people do this and it isn't overly difficult.

[Sonthert]

Go back to what I aid earlier. Laziness is rife in this country. I don't have statistics, thats just my opinion. It stops people from achieving in education and then when more people fail to achieve, they "lower the bar" to deflect attention from the failure of education. On this point I agree with many of the recent postings. This failure is due to many factors, in my opinion, partly the system, partly the laziness as I would characterize it. I did appreciate the point Jason made regarding Soft time and hard time. I would characterize many religious people as intellectually lazy. Science, observation, questioning and thinking are not easy, its far easier to take the easy way out and look to religion. Sorry if you don't like that point, but thats what I think. Some people are exigent and intellectually large individuals, but believe in god, nonetheless. Yet they still don't question their belief in god. Still fewer individuals believe that belief in god is the only intellectually reasonable explanation for things that science can't explain after painstakingly questioning and reasoning things out. I, of course, disagree with this, since it involves too much anthropocentric thinking and too many assumptions, but nonetheless it doesn't reduce the intellectual effort that intelligent christians require to come to this conclusion.

Back to the "offended" people :

I said that, wording it another way, people aren't necessarily becoming dumber, they're becoming less educated. I attributed several characteristics as associated with lower education rates, indicating, if there's a correlation, would increase if education was declining. Since I think we can agree that people in the United States are declining in educational level and those variables are on the increase, I think we can agree that there must be a two-way correlation. I used statistics to demonstrate that, for instance, less education involves an increase in religious belief. I won't even risk broaching the idea that educational levels are declining despite the increase of prevalence of the internet. Which poses some interesting ideas. OK, well I broached it and will leave it resting where it is.

Mndgame:

Read what I said before. I said people aren't becoming dumber, they're becoming less educated. Thats why when you misinterpreted my statements regarding decreases in the United States in education as talking about intelligence I said you threw a hissy fit. Lets say you made the statement "The problem with declining hookah quality isn't the quality of the product being manufactured, its the quality of products the importers are buying." and somebody were to question why you were attributing declines in quality to the manufacturers, you would be puzzled, especially if you believed quite the opposite, as your statement said and then went on to talk about what good quality hookahs were being manufactured. You might even be a little surprised and wonder whether the person misinterpreted your statement intentionally and wonder why they were disagreeing with a statement you didn't make and why they were interpreting your statement other than what you intended. Thats the gist of why I said you were throwing a hissy fit, you disagreed with a statement I didn't make, in fact I made the opposite statement and asked how I could believe such a thing. It seemed like you went out of your way to incorrectly characterize my statements. That is my perception, of course, and only you know if its true or not. Whatever.

I am not terribly protective of my ideas, opinions and what not, but I don't speak without carefully weighing them and evaluating a particular topic or idea. If somebody incorrectly characterizes my statements and then proceeds to disagree with their incorrect interpretation, I call them out on it. You committed a Straw Man fallacy, whether it was intentional or not, for the record. I'm not protective, I'm simply trying to point out where you made an obvious mistake. After I clarified it, and pointed out that I hadn't said that at all:

reread what I said. Intelligence is not education.

You then accuse me of being protective of my ideas. You misinterpreted what I said. You're the one trying to protect your mis-characterization of my statements. You can think what you like, obviously what I have to say doesn't have any bearing on what you post.

Further on your post, I said "This general lack of education is what makes it seem like we're dumber.". That is correct. Seem is the verb here. The moon seems larger at the horizon than at its zenith...but its not the case. The use of the word seem implies something deceives or causes a misconception. "Seem" is not "is". That statement wasn't terribly clear, based on my sloppily equivocating on the word "dumb" throughout this thread. Seem implies an observation, but I swung my argument around to less educated on the hinge of "seem dumber".

However none of them pray for the answers on a test, in fact I don't know a SINGLE religious person who believes:

1)"Religion is the substitute for education. Religious? You don't need science or education."
2) "God is the answer to all questions."

You're talking about people at a university/college. The religious people in question are the ones that aren't at a college/university. You ask so many questions of christians and get the answer "god has his reasons [for doing it]." or "Its part of god's plan." Why does anything happen? god's will. god is the answer to all questions to many christians. Easy answers don't offer incentives for learning any more than lowering the bar on test scores. People have to be challenged to excel and reducing expectations just reduces performance. I've heard a good deal of anti-intellectualism coming from the christian world, and I'm sure everyone here can attest the same thing. Why would a person choose to be uneducated? I would suspect an anti-intellectual undertow in religion would encourage it. Why did people move from the state of education and intellectualism during the Greek rule to largely completely uneducated during the rule of the catholic church (AKA the Dark Ages). If religion is such an enlightening institution, why wouldn't the rule of the catholic church be a time of great education and scientific advancement? Why would the Dark ages be punctuated by 90+% illiteracy if religion wasn't anti-education? Worse, it was used mostly for social control. Give me a break, people. There are educated religious people, but religion has always sought to keep people ignorant/uneducated.

So, of course, few religious people will acknowledge these attributes. The very nature of nuclear chemistry is fixed and immutable, yet religious people challenge the validity of C14 and K-Ar dating that disprove religious assertions and verify the age of the planet. They use pseudo-science to try and sway people to continue to believe religious doctrine and invalidate or call into question the process of education that disproves many religious claims in the bible or whatnot. Christians who believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago say artifacts and fossils that contradict that edict were put there"By god" to test good christian's faith. Come on...really? A person who is tempted to be swayed by incontrovertible scientific evidence is encouraged by their church to "have faith.". Do you really think either one of your two points is true? They will deny it, of course. Faith is in contradiction to rationality, by "definition" and rationality is the seat that science is based from. Faith is the basis for most religious people's beliefs. The Bible talks about how Eve was tempted by evil with knowledge, the first being manifested in their awareness that they were naked. "Who told thou wast naked?" No, I don't care about the specific quote. This is a book that celebrates ignorance. god's plan was one of ignorance, which was mucked up by evil or the devil or whatever you want to interpret the serpent as.

Catholics tend to be, modernly, more intellectual than Christians, as a rude generalization. The religious dogma has been largely reduced in the past 50 years, people can even eat red meat on Fridays now. Putting it a different way, Dogmatic Catholics are much rarer. The catholic church has become far more liberal as of late. Its actually Poseidon that causes hurricanes. Why don't you believe Poseidon causes hurricanes? You just have to have faith. Going back to your previous point that religious people don't believe "god is the answer to all questions.". The Greeks split up all the phenomena and observable data of the world and explained it using a lexicon of events that occurred because of and between the "Gods". All things could be explained because of one or more God-creatures in their mythology made it to be the case. In Christianity, all those Gods have been lumped into one god. Why wouldn't you perceive that god is the answer to all questions? It has been for all time, except the phrase was "Gods are the answer to all questions." I think Poseidon causing hurricanes is just as plausible as Jesus being resurrected. There is nominally more evidence of hurricanes than there is of resurrection, on the other hand.

I just thought misspelling intelligence was funny. I should have put LOL after that first point.

Sherwood: I agree, the "Pick and Choose" Christians as Jason likes to call them are more rife now than ever. They believe that, with no evidence, whatever they think or do is "OK with god". I reject this. If there is a god and the bible is true, then I think there are a whole parcel of people heading to "H-E-Double Hockey Sticks". The bible is quite explicit in regards to people who use religion for their selfish purposes. Well, Jesus was, anyhow. We've moved from a place of dogmatic religion to "Perceptual" religion. Believing in a god, not practicing a religion, but just believing, via faith, that their lives are right and just. Even dogmatic religion from 100 years ago relied more on common sense than people do now, I would wager. People had a stronger sense of the separation between religious belief and practical matters than they do now. People are more prone to believe things because they "Feel like it" than people did. And, this, as much as anything, is why I would attribute people (In the United States) substitute "religion" for education. Why learn anything when you can believe anything you want to in an environment where people support the practice?

I never look at how many posts a person has...it makes no difference. You're opinion is just as good as mine or anyone else's.

As I always like to say, if your house is on fire do you pray or ask other people for help? If you decide to pray, you're a fool.

[mustang_steve]

Sorry that was a typo, replace ACT with SAT in my post.

"The broken system is that grading scale is not based on what you learn, it's based on how hard you work."

I wouldn't say that it is completely broken. Even the smartest person has extreme limitations if they do not work and push themselves. Also, who would you rather hire an extremely hard worker or a lazy person who feels there is "no point in proving themselves daily" but may be inherently more gifted intellectually? I agree that it is biased towards hard working and that isn't necessarily how it should be but eventually working hard gets you somewhere, even if you aren't that smartest, I've seen it. It is hard to reward being smart if you aren't willing to work and show it.


"what does developing a worker mentailty have to do with one's understanding of biology, calculus, American history, or even art?"

Nothing I guess, but I'd say it shows maturity and passion for increasing/expanding knowledge which is pretty important.

If people think our elementary education system is that backwards and are indeed that intellectually talented/ahead then they should go to college early where you aren't generally graded on homework. Many people do this and it isn't overly difficult.

I fully understand the value of hard work. My thing was I went elsewhere to learn...instead of school I self-taught myself electronics, mechanics and various other esoteric skills (basically I learned to fix darn near anything thrown in front of me). I just found doing the same crap over and over again to be pointless. Really, if the educational system was tougheded up to where there was minimal repetition of lessones between class levels, it would benefit all in the long haul.

A Diploma is supposed to be an achievement, not a right...same for a college degree. What's happening is it's so easy to get a diploma now that the value of it is far lesser than it was for previous generations. That's a very bad thing.

I won't tie religion into it...I think religion has it's own problems, but those are more or less due to people not practicing basic principles of respect, using doctrine as a blunt weapon. The real problem is watering down of our system.

I still remember when in Literature class (yes, I had to take Lit), we read the Illiad, the Odyssey, and many of Shakespeare's works. I loved that class....but talking to some people who graduated a decade after me, they don't know this stuff. Why? This literature had significant importance. Actaully, the studies of ancient Greek culture inspired me to follow their concept of the ideal man...one who is physically, intellectually and defensively sound. Then Shakespeare showed us how an oppressed people used the arts to safely display their displeasure at those in power....he showed me the power of comedy, the lessons of tragedy and that no matter how screwed the situation is, one can always express it somehow.

I know my highschool education did crawl due to my apathy of it all....but that apathy was in huge part due to not being challenged enough. I started my schooling in a top school, then went to a lesser school due to a move, then due to another move went to the school I spent most of my years in, which was YEARS behind the last (but was one of the top 20 in the state), and then for my senior year, was another move to an even further watered down school. I can't stress how depressing it is to do freshman level sttuff over again due to a move.

So perhaps having an equal standard throughout the state is a good start....not a watered down standard either...start with first grade, then push them...but also make them love learning...which is something that public schooling fails SO hard at. The only classes I liked were the sciences, since they were very hands-on and challenging as well. There was no fluff, just our group, a table, some equipment, and whatever we were working on. That's a gripping class.

On the other side....there's too many lecture classes, and classes where the teachers don't really grab the attention of the class...just read from the board, stare in your book and sometimes answer a question that's thrown at you.

The real problem is when a student can learn the material in a week, but has to take a year long class, it's wasteful and will teach laziness as well as a lost chance for better education. The "worker mentality" I was talking about wasn't so much hard work as "do what you're told"....history has proven that it's out of the box thinkers that do great things, not those that just perform to order. We need people that can follow orders, but not at the cost of independant thinking.

A prime example is the hot coffee lawsuit...why do people need to be told to be careful around coffee? Why do they expect to be told it's dangerous? Too much order in life leads to this....people aren't machines, and we shouldn't have to program in common sense through signs.

It's all a chicken vs. egg issue at this point though.

[Mndgame]

"The use of the word seem implies something deceives or causes a misconception.

I guess I was confused as I didn't think seem necessarily always implied deception or misconception. "There seems to be no reason not to go outside." Or "It seems likely to rain." Or "I can't seem to understand that sentence."
No deception implied?


Anyways I think our disagreement stems from the fact that you seem to know only radically religious people who reject science as a whole. I don't only know people at a University, my Grandma is 80-something and doesn't dispute that the earth is over 6000 years old. She just thinks Jesus had scuba gear and swam to the bottom of the ocean to plant fossils for us to find to try to fool us lol.Oddly enough my Freshman year randomly assigned room mate was a Jesus freak and didn't even believe in evolution, complete creationism. He was actually pretty smart in Math/Accounting but overall uneducated for rejecting obvious things like that. In fact, I know of a professor that refused to write a LOR for medical school because the student did not believe in the theory of evolution. Honestly you paint a picture of religious people different from what I know.

You probably know that I agree with most of what you say and have been on both sides of this argument to some extent, I'm just not AS critical of religion as you are. And I'm more critical of religion as a whole than anyone else I know haha I just have come to terms that it does some good and those who are seriously intellectually impeded by it, aren't going to produce worthwhile scientific contributions (unless they impede others I suppose.. Tangent but glad Obama lifted the ban on funding from ESC's, maybe I should go into that? lol). I feel religion is on an overall decline anyways. Also, I got to Richard Dawkins speak a few weeks back, was interesting.

[Sherwood]

Catholics tend to be, modernly, more intellectual than Christians, as a rude generalization.

Just a sidenote here: Catholics would consider themselves to be Christians, and most Protestants would consider Catholics Christians as well. There are disputed groups, but Catholics are not one of them.

As regards your laziness theorem, it seems awfully convenient. While the education figures can be backed up, the laziness seems to indicate a kind of disdain for believers. It places people who disagree with you into a box, wherein they're unwilling or unable to ponder the things you have to ponder. It also, conveniently, presumes that every professed Atheist arrived at their position by unique deductive reasoning. -- That's a very flattering conceit. Science, observation, questioning and thinking are not so hard for many as you make it seem. Moreover, for thinking AND believing individuals, you can add to that list the task of harmonizing their thoughts and observations with their beliefs. Almost makes atheism the easier of the two options...

You say that some Christians are "intellectually large individuals, but believe in god, nonetheless. Yet they still don't question their belief in god." Do you hold yourself to that same standard? If you ask Christians to entertain the idea that there is no God, as you seem to, then you yourself need to be willing to entertain the idea that there is.

Doing so would necessitate you abandon the reductio ad absurdum "Poseidon = Jesus" argument you threw out up above. Many atheists use a similar tactic of relating Biblical stories to fairy tales, but we both know that's a lazy argument. The Bible is a richly documented and studied piece of history. Fairy tales are morality stories, and were written and consumed for that purpose alone.

In a sense, I'm arguing for argument's sake here, so feel free to ignore as much as you want. Nonetheless, I'd caution you not to get too comfortable in the notion that atheism is somehow more noble, more intellectual, or more difficult than belief.

[tinyj316]

While I haven't been a part of this conversation, I would like to make a couple points/opinions that can either be taken into consideration or ignored as someone who has worked 50 hours in three days, and has a shit ton of stuff going on in his personal life. Also, please forgive any spelling/grammer, as a result of the same lame excuse

The educational system in the US is fucked, plain and simple. Schools are being used more for daycare centers than institutions of learning. Why do we give kids summers off? They're not out working in the fields anymore. Hell, half the kids probably would keel over and die from the hard physical labor of working on the farm, and another third would be suffering from extreme disconnection anxiety, but that's a different thread. The point I'm trying to make is, our education system does not reflect the needs of a more "advanced" society. If kids were to be schooled year round, knowledge retention would increase, kids could potentially learn more, and productivity would increase. So what's our barrier here? Part of it is funding, part of it is poorly motivated faculty and the teacher's unions fighting for the antiquated system, part of it is the whiny little brats have convinced their parents that they can't go to school year round, part of it is unknown, etc. Studies have shown that year round schools help the students...so why aren't we doing this?!?

No Child Left Behind. Probably the WORST mandate never funded. In any given population, you're going to have some really dumb people, some really smart people, and a bunch of average people that could go either way (normal distribution...the bell curve). Why should the lower half drag the higher half down to their level? Eric makes some very valid points to this. People are becoming more lazy as time and technology progresses. This makes Darwin cry. Its all about survival of the fittest. Some people are bound to fail, while at the opposite end of the spectrum, some are bound to overachieve. Its necessary for there to be any merit in any effective grading system (more on this later). The only reason why humans (or any species for that matter) exist is to procreate to insure the survival of their species by becoming smarter, faster, better looking, stronger, etc. Why are we taking gigantic steps backwards in this regard? I'll touch on this in a minute. Back to NCLB. This mandate has been unfunded since day one (I've had four US senators and 12 US Representatives, a fair mix of D's and R's, tell me this). Its something that looks good on paper at least to the right, but does not live up to what it was designed to do, and in fact, it sets us back decades. The only problem is, in order to fix it, the politicians need to admit they were wrong, which is like pulling teeth.

Grading scales. Too many teachers out there are teaching to standardized tests, rather than to a grade level. This is due in large to NCLB and other state mandated tests. Teachers don't have enough freedom in their cirriculums to teach with the passion they had when they first started teaching, causing them to become disheartened and not giving a damn anymore. Teachers that grade tough are seen as unfair, hard, mean, etc., where teachers who give away passing grades like its a fire sale are more saught after because it raises morale and keeps the kids in public school (where some kids just don't belong or fit in). Then, you have some teachers and districts that are implementing (bullshit) methods like "choice theory" where you give the kids the choice to do their work and pass or fail. I had one whackjob teacher who was a strong believer of this garbage, and kids flocked to his class because they could re-do assignments countless times, screw off in class, not show up, and not face any real reprocussions. When I was in high school, I thought it was the greatest thing ever; however, being in the real world now, I realize just how detrimental that was to my professional development and study skills. Why do kids get to re-do assignments? The real world isn't that forgiving, why should we build up this false sense of "its okay to screw up, you can fix it and it won't effect you at all"?

Speaking of screwups, lets talk about teen pregnancy. The local high school in my town has a day care center in it...and its for students to leave their kids while they get their high school diploma in a traditional setting. THE HIGH SCHOOL HAS A DAY CARE FOR THE STUDENTS! The school district also teaches an abstinence only cirriculum, and bans anyone from distributing contraceptives or teaching safe sex practices on school property. As a result, these kids don't get any primer on how to effectively use birth control, they don't know their options, and so they just don't do it, resulting in an astronomically high teen pregnancy rate in our county. The local churches don't do anything to curb this either, as they see these kids getting pregnant as a sign from god that their membership and tithing will increase, dispite the fact that these kids have broken god's law and will be going to hell. I work at the local community college, an just today there was a 19 year old girl who came in to sign up for GED classes and was juggling 4 kids ranging in age from 3 years to 3 months... age 19, and she has 4 kids already... This poor girl's life is over because she couldn't keep her legs closed. Not only that, but she's breeding the next generation of impoverished and genetically (intelligence wise) inferior children.

Now lets get to the fact that we have to warn people about everything and constantly cover your ass. I think this is a double edged sword. True, there are some genuinely stupid people out there who need to be told that coffee is hot, or that smoking can cause cancer, etc. But there are also plenty of people out there who are just greedy, and looking to exploit the fact that they should have to be warned about something because they could be of substandard intelligence. While its tragic that the former are that ignorant, its even more tragic that the latter can get away with these exploits through our "wonderful" justice system (again, another thread).

Finally, to organized religion and its role on education. As I mentioned previously, the local churches could care less about kids popping out babies because they know that it helps insure the prosperity of the church, and because aborting a fetus is a one way ticket to hell, sitting in a middle seat, wedged between two fat, sweaty, smelly, talkative people. The religious right, more times then not, use a lack of education as a form of mind control to gain subservience. They discourage questioning and logic in lieu of faith. When people make a mistake, rather than have people learn from it, they'd rather punish them or make them repent to a "merciful" god who, never forgets and will judge you on your negative actions while ignorning the works of righteousness (Titus 3:5). Also, what people don't realize is, the Bible is a man made book. Not one word of the Bible was written by God or Jesus Christ themselves (dispite being "inspired" writings on their behalf). Finally, the most commonly used translation of the bible is the King James Version. King James basically edited the bible how he saw fit because he was the king. Books were left out that did not jive with what the church of England was saying, verses and chapters were edited to fit agendas, etc. This is why you see so many different versions of the bible today. Nobody really knows what should be in there, and as a result, take liberties with translations, etc. What this all boils down to is that organized religion is a dangerous beast, and the danger magnifies a thousand fold when it comes to shaping the minds of our future generations.

Ok... I think that's enough from me, as I can barely keep my eyes open at this point... hopefully my thoughts make sense.

[Sherwood]

Also, what people don't realize is, the Bible is a man made book. Not one word of the Bible was written by God or Jesus Christ themselves (dispite being "inspired" writings on their behalf). Finally, the most commonly used translation of the bible is the King James Version. King James basically edited the bible how he saw fit because he was the king. Books were left out that did not jive with what the church of England was saying, verses and chapters were edited to fit agendas, etc. This is why you see so many different versions of the bible today. Nobody really knows what should be in there, and as a result, take liberties with translations, etc. What this all boils down to is that organized religion is a dangerous beast, and the danger magnifies a thousand fold when it comes to shaping the minds of our future generations.

Ok... I think that's enough from me, as I can barely keep my eyes open at this point... hopefully my thoughts make sense.

I'm gonna try and untangle this for you, as it's a bit of a hodgepodge of prejudices, assertions, and legends. The Bible, and the process embarked upon to create and formalize it, is extremely complex. Boiling it down inaccurately does no one any favors.

First off, James did not write the King James Bible. He didn't translate it, either. He convened a court of 40+ biblical scholars to translate the Masoratic Hebrew texts, and the Greek Septuagint into one English book.

Moreover, he did not have the luxury of omitting parts of the bible that did not jive with Church of England. The whole purpose for the "authorized" KJV was to address the issues that certain religious factions had with the previous English translations of the Bible. Prior to th KJV, English copies of the Bible abounded, under multiple translations. There was no room to "leave things out", as this would have caused revolt. The KJV was an honest attempt to translate the Bible as well as possible, in light of the criticisms of prior translations.

You can look and find those criticisms, if you want. We have the other translations available to us. There are no complaints of missing books, just of slight mistranslations. Translation is not an exact science, but Heaven is on the line for these people, and so accuracy is important.

Moreover, to further strengthen the validity of the Bible's lineage, we have copies of the Masoratic texts and the Septuagint that the KJV was translated from. They're on display in the national library in London in the rare books and showcase room. You should go see them, if you're ever in London, as the entire room is an absolute treasure trove of wonder.

None of this is to be read as proof that the Bible is true, or that any of it is accurate as to events that actually took place. It is simply to say that the Bible you buy off a shelf at Target, King James or otherwise, has an unbroken, known, non-conspiratorial and traceable lineage back directly to the source texts, whenever they are available. More often than not, they are.

As concerns "missing books", this was a big thing a few years back, but it's way overblown. The Bible was never dictated to have any certain number of books, nor was the order ordained. The council of Trent effectively decided what made the cut in 1546. Note, this deciion was made 60 years before James had the authorized English translation drawn up.
Catholic Bibles have 7 more books than Protestant Bibles, but these books are not scripture, they are merely reference material. Other books were considered and rejected by the council of Trent. In most cases, you can go and buy these books at Borders and read them, should you want. Knock yourself out. Edited April 16, 2009 by Sherwood

[Sonthert]

Catholics tend to be, modernly, more intellectual than Christians, as a rude generalization.

Just a sidenote here: Catholics would consider themselves to be Christians, and most Protestants would consider Catholics Christians as well. There are disputed groups, but Catholics are not one of them.

As regards your laziness theorem, it seems awfully convenient. While the education figures can be backed up, the laziness seems to indicate a kind of disdain for believers.

I think its axiomatic that questioning and deciding each moral point for oneself is harder than just accepting what the church preaches. It certainly is disdain. Good word for it. Not of believers, but of processed, pre-packaged morality and established religion. I agree fundamentally with any person that has carefully considered the issues that apply to their life. I was applying laziness in two different senses, too.

It places people who disagree with you into a box, wherein they're unwilling or unable to ponder the things you have to ponder. It also, conveniently, presumes that every professed Atheist arrived at their position by unique deductive reasoning. -- That's a very flattering conceit.

I disagree with your first statement...but if "believers" aren't in that box, aren't they then guilty of being "pick and choose" believers, which are decried by priests and ministers?

Science, observation, questioning and thinking are not so hard for many as you make it seem. Moreover, for thinking AND believing individuals, you can add to that list the task of harmonizing their thoughts and observations with their beliefs. Almost makes atheism the easier of the two options...

Since Atheists can be classified in so many ways, positive atheists, negative atheists, Implicit, explicit, humanist, rationalist, axiologicalists, naturalist, Moral relativists, Generalists, assorted religious one (Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists, even animists to a lesser degree, even some Hindus), Physicalists, Skepticists, Physicalists, Political ones, Moralists, Anti-Religious types, Non-cognitivists, and even more, I doubt that being an atheist is any easier than being a believer. Can we agree that intellectually lazy individuals are more likely to accept what they're told? Being a skeptic is tougher than believing everything you hear. Would that not impel the intellectually lazy to an ethos that tells them what to believe rather than an idea that demands questioning and reasoning? Would that not imply an organized religion for the intellectually lazy? Again, not all religious people are intellectually lazy.

You say that some Christians are "intellectually large individuals, but believe in god, nonetheless. Yet they still don't question their belief in god." Do you hold yourself to that same standard? If you ask Christians to entertain the idea that there is no God, as you seem to, then you yourself need to be willing to entertain the idea that there is.

It is absurd, but I do, as evidenced in my last post:

If there is a god and the bible is true, then I think there are a whole parcel of people heading to "H-E-Double Hockey Sticks".

Doing so would necessitate you abandon the reductio ad absurdum "Poseidon = Jesus" argument you threw out up above. Many atheists use a similar tactic of relating Biblical stories to fairy tales, but we both know that's a lazy argument.

How could you reduce a religious belief thats far, far older than Christianity to a "Fairy Tale"? That smacks of arrogance. Your beliefs are sacrosanct, others are fairy tales? Well! Now who's guilty of: "a very flattering conceit"? Greek mythology at least is plausible and explains physical phenomena with little stories. I agree its a fairy tale, but it least its a good-natured one, Christianity has and is oriented towards social control. I think they're both fairy tales, but god forbid I should accuse the bible of being a superstition and a fairy tale!

"The Bible is a richly documented and studied piece of history. Fairy tales are morality stories, and were written and consumed for that purpose alone.

Most works of fiction have contemporaneous references in them, which after 1600 years would become history. There are much better history books from the time, without all the mumbo-jumbo in the bible. I would say the bible fits into the category of fairy tale, based on your definition. The Screenplay for "Pulp Fiction" contained a number of contemporaneous references, to Los Angeles for instance...would you now propose if a large number of people studied it, it would become a history book? Laff. Its fiction, lots of fiction has references to things, people and places that actually (or actually did) exist. The bible is no more factual than Greek mythology. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it accurate. Obviously, both can't be true. So, my reasoning would be both are false. Carl Sagan would have argued that if one is true, then the other must be the invention of religious men. If one can be the invention of religious men, then they are most likely both the inventions of religious men (although different ones).

In a sense, I'm arguing for argument's sake here, so feel free to ignore as much as you want. Nonetheless, I'd caution you not to get too comfortable in the notion that atheism is somehow more noble, more intellectual, or more difficult than belief.

I wouldn't make all those assertions, but atheists sure do have a lot more to think about, than swallowing pre-canned Biblical tripe. Each thing you take as a lesson in the bible as read, with no more thought, atheism requests thought on. There are stupid atheists...lots of them, but our moral history is a lot cleaner than christianity's is. The atheists haven't had an Inquisition, a Dark Ages (Where free thought was required to break the grip of the church), or crusades. We don't have Jihads, or bomb abortion clinics. We don't have Branch Davidians or Jonestowns. There's a good number of us...so where are our atrocities? More noble? I think history, whether in the bible or in a history book, would demonstrate that we atheists have acted more nobly and less violently. Does that make us more noble? I don't know. Does that mean if the whole world suddenly rejected religious superstition and fairy tales the world would be at peace? Probably not. Our hands are a lot cleaner though.

I know lots of moderate and non-extreme christians, and I love them as any other human, I'm talking about examples specifically and not attributing these to all "believers" as Sherwood calls them.

Back on topic, I feel that less education or "Dumber" is going to lead to some pretty dramatic changes in the United States. I would go so far as to say, without dumbed-down populace, fascism is impossible...so is this whole dumbing down part of an organized conspiracy...a step towards the thin end of the wedge, of totalitarianism, is it inadvertant? Is it an accident or intentional? What are your guys thoughts on the matter? If it is planned, who's behind it?

[judgeposer]

I've interpolated my reply.

Speaking of screwups, lets talk about teen pregnancy. The local high school in my town has a day care center in it...and its for students to leave their kids while they get their high school diploma in a traditional setting. THE HIGH SCHOOL HAS A DAY CARE FOR THE STUDENTS! The school district also teaches an abstinence only cirriculum, and bans anyone from distributing contraceptives or teaching safe sex practices on school property. As a result, these kids don't get any primer on how to effectively use birth control, they don't know their options, and so they just don't do it, resulting in an astronomically high teen pregnancy rate in our county. The local churches don't do anything to curb this either, as they see these kids getting pregnant as a sign from god that their membership and tithing will increase, dispite the fact that these kids have broken god's law and will be going to hell. I work at the local community college, an just today there was a 19 year old girl who came in to sign up for GED classes and was juggling 4 kids ranging in age from 3 years to 3 months... age 19, and she has 4 kids already... This poor girl's life is over because she couldn't keep her legs closed. Not only that, but she's breeding the next generation of impoverished and genetically (intelligence wise) inferior children.

Why do you find your local high school's day care contemptible? While it might add to some teenage irresponsibility - if the teenagers somehow believe that they can make serious choices, like getting pregnant, without regard to bearing the complete responsibility of those choices' consequences - it also provides for a means for those young teen mothers to complete their high school education more easily given their circumstances. Put another way, your district seems to want these young women to finish their education, which is, I think, a good thing.

Also, your characterization of the lack of church involvement dealing with teen pregnancy in your area I find a bit cynical, if not unfairly impugning. Even if we accept the fact that local churches in your area seem to do nothing to help solve this problem, in terms of providing for these teens or otherwise educating them about the responsibilities of parenthood, which might sufficiently warn teens away from their early pregnancies, to make the leap that their reasons are to increase their flock of otherwise damned souls, as you say, attempts to prove the impossible.

I can only imagine what you see on a daily basis given your work, but your take on the teen mother you encountered recently seems rather patronizing: "This poor girl's life is over..." While her choice to become a mother so early in life might not have been wise, her attempt to secure continued education, if anything, demonstrates the opposite of an ended life. Likewise, that you say "she's breeding the next generation of impoverished and genetically (intelligence wise) inferior children" reaffirms my assessment: patronizing, but now perhaps we can add insulting.

Now lets get to the fact that we have to warn people about everything and constantly cover your ass. I think this is a double edged sword. True, there are some genuinely stupid people out there who need to be told that coffee is hot, or that smoking can cause cancer, etc. But there are also plenty of people out there who are just greedy, and looking to exploit the fact that they should have to be warned about something because they could be of substandard intelligence. While its tragic that the former are that ignorant, its even more tragic that the latter can get away with these exploits through our "wonderful" justice system (again, another thread).

We should admit that our society has grown more litigious, but I don't know whether we can trace the trend to greed or ineptitude. I know you used the McDonald's coffee case as an example of the trend, but most people don't know the facts of that particular case: (again) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._Mc...27s_Restaurants.

[mitchard]

"The Bible is a richly documented and studied piece of history. Fairy tales are morality stories, and were written and consumed for that purpose alone.

Most works of fiction have contemporaneous references in them, which after 1600 years would become history. There are much better history books from the time, without all the mumbo-jumbo in the bible. I would say the bible fits into the category of fairy tale, based on your definition. The Screenplay for "Pulp Fiction" contained a number of contemporaneous references, to Los Angeles for instance...would you now propose if a large number of people studied it, it would become a history book? Laff. Its fiction, lots of fiction has references to things, people and places that actually (or actually did) exist. The bible is no more factual than Greek mythology. Just because you believe it, doesn't make it accurate. Obviously, both can't be true. So, my reasoning would be both are false. Carl Sagan would have argued that if one is true, then the other must be the invention of religious men. If one can be the invention of religious men, then they are most likely both the inventions of religious men (although different ones).

Agree.

The bible, which over time has been horribly slaughtered through translation and church intervention as compared to its original text, can hardly be considered a work of historical accuracy. It would without a doubt be classified as a collection of "fairy tales" based upon that definition. Even when I was very young and still attending church, it was obvious to me that it should be taken as a book outlining morality for those who follow the faith. Hell, even those teaching the classes spoke highly of the moral lessons that were preached.

To me, thats what it has always been. The stories, though they may be totally false or taken way out of context/fabricated though time, are just moral lessons for those who read them.

I would still count the bible as a "richly documented and studied piece of history", simple based upon its historical significance. The impact that work alone has had on the world is astounding. But I would never refer to it as I would a history book or scientific study of some kind.

[judgeposer]

Back on topic, I feel that less education or "Dumber" is going to lead to some pretty dramatic changes in the United States. I would go so far as to say, without dumbed-down populace, fascism is impossible...so is this whole dumbing down part of an organized conspiracy...a step towards the thin end of the wedge, of totalitarianism, is it inadvertant? Is it an accident or intentional? What are your guys thoughts on the matter? If it is planned, who's behind it?

These questions remind me of a conversation we had! (probably conversations)

I don't even know whether I would (in the end) say we're getting dumber or less educated. Could we not be employing outmoded categories or methods of assessment to arrive at the conclusion that we're less intelligent than before? This is anecdotal, but, in college, I remember reviewing research of children who played (excessive amounts of?) video games. The researchers concluded something to the effect that those kids developed a host of talents and abilities not before experienced, or otherwise measured by our traditional indicators, like standardized testing. Likewise, these kids have adapted to overstimulation (they can multitask better, in other words) in amounts that would have driven their parents and grandparents crazy. When we test these kids according to measures not designed to measure these new adaptations and talents, they seem to fall short. The researchers, I believe, were arguing that our current methods of testing and measurement might reveal lessened intelligence, but simply because those measures were never designed to assess these new talents or ways of computation. BS? - perhaps. But, I think we should, at least, entertain the possibility that how we've measured "intelligence," or such things as reasoning ability (e.g. SATs) might not show the totality of what's going on.

Even if I do agree with Eric on this point that "without dumbed-down populace, fascism is impossible," can we say that an educated populace makes fascism less likely or impossible? My lack of historical knowledge might lead me astray here, but how do we account for Hitler's Germany? - Were the pre-WWII Germans dumbed down, and thus more susceptible to fascism? I can see how an effective fascist campaign might thrive in a dumbed-down society, for sure, which is perhaps why as a priority fascist governments work to remove(?) the intellectual class - but those intellectuals preexist the fascist regime, no? - So, how then does the process of fascistization take root in a society with an intellectual class (in the first place)? Perhaps by some gradualist approach.

Organized conspiracy? - I'm even more loathe to disagree on that.

[mitchard]

I think rather than a "dumbing" down of the populous in post WWI Germany, it was more of a want for something more. Times were incredibly hard after the Treaty of Versailles. Shit hit the fan, and the people were willing to jump on the first boat that really promised them a more stable future. At that point, anything would have appeared better than what was currently going on. I think the people/nation as a whole was more desperate than anything.

I have heard stories first hand from my German teacher. Her mother lived through both wars. Hitler rising to power was a blessing to everyone. They literally rejoiced. He promised them better lives, an economic upturn, and most importantly, that Germany would return to its former glory. That was something that the Weimar Republic was failing to do.

We all know how the story ends.

[Bye bye now have fun]

on a side note, darwin was a bitch who stole his work, and was sent to the ship because his parents wanted to get rid of him