Education and Religious Practice
According to an American Sociological Association press release, the least well-educated Americans—people who have not graduated from high school—attend religious services less frequently than do the moderately educated (high school but no four-year college degree), who in turn attend less frequently than do the most educated (at least four years of college). The study, which involves whites only, showed that service attendance has fallen for all groups since the 1970s, but most precipitously for the less educated:
“In the 1970s, among those aged 25-44, 51 percent of college-educated whites attended religious services monthly or more, compared to 50 percent of moderately educated whites, and 38 percent of the least educated whites. In the 2000s, among those aged 25-44, 46 percent of college-educated whites attended monthly or more, compared to 37 percent of moderately educated whites, and 23 percent of the least educated whites.”
The study notes the disturbing implication that less educated people increasingly lack connection to the resources that religious institutions ordinarily provide, such as social networks, and also the moral teachings in support of family and middle class values. Lack of education, which the ASA study considered, of course correlates with lower income.
While these arguments have obvious force, a broader doctrinal issue is involved as well. Ruby K. Payne’s book A Framework for Understanding Poverty, describes spiritual poverty as one aspect of poverty. She observes that many people in poverty have a fatalistic account of the world.
All or nearly all monotheistic religions teach that the universe is governed by a benign ruler. People lacking this belief, I would argue, may view themselves as subject to the vagaries of a chaotic universe. The subject calls to mind a Wall Street Journal article associating poverty in Haiti with the Voodoo beliefs ingrained in the culture there.
- Comment (41)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
May '11
Re: Education and Religious Practice
Brian Watt
What's implied in the question is that non-church goers or those who profess no belief may be "subject to anything". I take that to mean any unethical or immoral behavior. I don't think there's any empirical evidence one way or another on this; only a feeling that I've heard expressed before...that without a belief in the divine people would essentially run amok. The numbers of abortions in a predominantly Christian country like America seems to indicate that Christians, unfortunately, are also prone to some horrific behavior and that, despite the best intentions of the clergy, too many in their flock have strayed. · Aug 25 at 9:46am
It is true that anyone, even the most devout person, can make really bad choices. Katievs raises a valid point, though, whether people who do not believe that they answer to God are more likely to think that they can do whatever they want. Also, while most Americans identify as Christian, there is probably considerable variety as to how religious they are. Another interesting issue, hard to measure, is what actually gets taught in Church. Many clergy do not say much about abortion.
Sep '10
Re: Education and Religious Practice
L.T. - thanks so much for opening this conversation.
The study focused on caucasian poor subjects, because there is less divergence of behavior (ie, church-attendance) in the black and hispanic communities. This tells me that a strong, healthy culture (including connections to a church community) is key to successful outcomes in education, employment, etc. Look at the asian immigrant cultures, where the first generation or two maintain a strong connection to their ancestral culture, and experience vastly better outcomes in education and wealth creation. On the other hand, the broken, unhealthy urban black culture is almost nothing but bad outcomes (single motherhood, incarceration, drug use, poverty).
Back to politics: no wonder so many Americans are craving a candidate who reinforces and stands up for traditional American culture.
Sep '10
Re: Education and Religious Practice
The amount of opining about the "broader" implications of this garbage is shocking given the inherently limited nature of the the sample. It's embarrassing to see some of the commentary here from people who, despite my initial hopes, I'm beginning to doubt know better.
Sep '10
Re: Education and Religious Practice
I would think a conservative contingent such as this would recognize the stark difference between education and credentialization. Count me among the skeptical that this study speaks at all to the ability of these people to be productive members of society.
Also, it should hardly be surprising that an institution that provides a locus of community should have better outcomes with respect to operating within institutionalized systems. Communities matter. Institutional familiarity matters. Religious institutions provide both.
Sep '10
Re: Education and Religious Practice
I'm sorry, but this is not a valid point, at all. It's fatuous, demeaning to your deepest integrity, and more than a little insulting to those of us who appeal to reason and evidence for moral grounding.
Do you honestly wish to make the argument that, were it known to you (or believed by you, as it were) that there were no supernatural grantor of moral boundaries, you could then steal, rape, pillage and murder subject to the whims of your impulses? Really?
Insult your integrity in this manner if you must, but don't for a second try to make that case on behalf of those of us who do not believe we require divine permission to behave well.
Sep '10
Re: Education and Religious Practice
Now it's my turn to (with complete and openly-admitted ignorance) appeal to experience. Is this really the case, Steven?
May '11
Re: Education and Religious Practice
Forrest Cox
Do you honestly wish to make the argument that, were it known to you (or believed by you, as it were) that there were no supernatural grantor of moral boundaries, you could then steal, rape, pillage and murder subject to the whims of your impulses? Really? · Aug 25 at 3:35pm
Aristotle analyzes ethical behavior in the Nicomachean Ethics from a standpoint that is not religious. I am sure that many people who are not religious believers behave ethically. Couple points, however:
1. There is some question as to whether reason provides us with a sufficient motivation to behave justly. Plato's Republic takes this up. While Plato seems to make the case for justice, some would say that the argument is insufficient, and that Plato knows. Frankly not sure what I think about this.
2. Moral codes built on a natural reason alone do not ask as much from us or give as much to the community as the commandment to love one another as Christ loved us.
3. Politically speaking, we should be pessimistic. I said "are more likely to think they can do whatever they want." Fear of God is conducive to law and order.
Dec '10
Re: Education and Religious Practice
Sheesh. I thought we were discussing the very interesting and unexpected results of a sociological study showing that poor whites are increasingly "falling away" from religion. I can see how this topic would lead to a chicken or egg discussion or the benefits of religion for promoting behaviors that lead to success (Evan Sayet's phrase). How did we end up discussing whether or not atheists are capable of moral behavior and inspire a spirited defense by Ricochet's resident atheists?
Does anyone on Ricochet disagree with the proposition that atheists are capable of being decent moral successful people, just as religious practitioners are capable of behaving badly and ending up in the underclass?
Good. Now that that's settled, let's get back to the topic and explore why it might be that poor whites have given up on religion. And with all due respect and sisterly affection for Rico's atheist friends, I don't think it's because they've chosen "reason" and "evidence" over faith.
Sep '10
Re: Education and Religious Practice
L.T. Rahe
1. There is some question as to whether reason provides us with a sufficient motivation to behave justly. Plato's Republic takes this up. While Plato seems to make the case for justice, some would say that the argument is insufficient, and that Plato knows. Frankly not sure what I think about this.
My own familiarity with (and opinions of) Plato aside, it's interesting to know "there is some question" in this matter. I behave - by and large - justly. I check my actions through the employ of reason against evidence that something could yield a good outcome. The argument from this side of the fence is that this is the result of evolution - we're programmed to do this, and programmed quite well. We work at it. Often times, we fail. We'll continue to get better. This phenomenon is viewable throughout the human experience (indeed, it's readily viewable within religious communities).
Sep '10
Re: Education and Religious Practice
L.T. Rahe
2. Moral codes built on a natural reason alone do not ask as much from us or give as much to the community as the commandment to love one another as Christ loved us.
I see - so it's morally superior to be good to one another because a supernatural power ordered us to do so as opposed to, say, because we recognize the importance amicable interaction with the world around us plays in securing the our ability to lead a happy and fulfilling lives for ourselves and for future generations?
And, I'm quite sorry, I fail to understand how the process by which I apparently obtained my vicarious redemption equates in any sense to love, or to morality. Point in fact, vicarious redemption - the absolution of not just the penalties, but of the responsibility for wrongdoing - is immoral.
Sep '10
Re: Education and Religious Practice
L.T. Rahe
3. Politically speaking, we should be pessimistic. I said "are more likely to think they can do whatever they want." Fear of God is conducive to law and order.
How true is it that the totalitarian yields better civil outcomes? Is it at all desirable to have credulity as the basis for the maintenance of law and order?
How many non-believers do you know? How likely are they, really, to think they can do "whatever they want"?
Sep '10
Re: Education and Religious Practice
Actually, this is precisely the problem - many of the religious here DO in fact disagree with the fundamental tenets of that statement. This leads to all sorts of meaningful differences with respect to policy, and those differences will increasingly serve as the dividing line between large segments of the base.
For instance, those here for whom religion is a primary answer to the nanny state's great machine of disenfranchisement immediately seized upon the idea that "uneducated" caucasians seem to be less religious than "educated" caucasians. And that's really about it. No policy problems. Just a cultural statement.
Those who, on the other hand, don't view the world through believers' eyes see a troubling process of de-civilization, and immediately wonder what policies could be implemented to reverse the process. The optics matter.
This is going to be THE theme behind a great number of discussions within the conservative community in the coming months.
May '11
Re: Education and Religious Practice
Forrest Cox
My own familiarity with (and opinions of) Plato aside, it's interesting to know "there is some question" in this matter. I behave - by and large - justly. I check my actions through the employ of reason against evidence that something could yield a good outcome. The argument from this side of the fence is that this is the result of evolution - we're programmed to do this, and programmed quite well. We work at it. Often times, we fail. We'll continue to get better. This phenomenon is viewable throughout the human experience (indeed, it's readily viewable within religious communities). · Aug 25 at 5:37pm
Two separate issues involved here. Whether our choices are programmed pertains to the question whether there is freedom. The question, "should I behave justly in this given situation?" is a question of ethics.
Sep '10
Re: Education and Religious Practice
L.T. Rahe Two separate issues involved here. Whether our choices are programmed pertains to the question whether there is freedom. The question, "should I behave justly in this given situation?" is a question of ethics. · Aug 25 at 6:41pm
...
May '11
Re: Education and Religious Practice
Forrest Cox
I see - so it's morally superior to be good to one another because a supernatural power ordered us to do so as opposed to, say, because we recognize the importance amicable interaction with the world around us plays in securing the our ability to lead a happy and fulfilling lives for ourselves and for future generations?
And, I'm quite sorry, I fail to understand how the process by which I apparently obtained my vicarious redemption equates in any sense to love, or to morality. Point in fact, vicarious redemption - the absolution of not just the penalties, but of the responsibility for wrongdoing - is immoral. · Aug 25 at 5:47pm
My argument was about the nature of what is asked of us and about the nature of what we give back. Your comments relate to whether one motivation for moral conduct is superior to another. Christians try to love God and do what He says, even beyond what our reason would ordinarily tell us to do, because He is all good and died on a cross for us. We remain responsible for our conduct because of freedom. I do not see what is immoral about this.
Edited on August 28, 2011 at 11:12pmMay '11
Re: Education and Religious Practice
Forrest Cox
How true is it that the totalitarian yields better civil outcomes? Is it at all desirable to have credulity as the basis for the maintenance of law and order?
How many non-believers do you know? How likely are they, really, to think they can do "whatever they want"? · Aug 25 at 5:58pm
No one is arguing for "the totalitarian." Fear of punishment is not an ideal motivation for changing one's behavior, but we don't live in an ideal world. Religious belief is not the only basis for law and order, but it is conducive to law and order.
I know a number of non-believers, many of whom are decent people. We do have a problem in this country of people thinking they can do whatever they want; in the aggregate, this trend goes along with the decline of religious practice.
May '11
Re: Education and Religious Practice
Forrest Cox
For instance, those here for whom religion is a primary answer to the nanny state's great machine of disenfranchisement immediately seized upon the idea that "uneducated" caucasians seem to be less religious than "educated" caucasians. And that's really about it. No policy problems. Just a cultural statement.
Those who, on the other hand, don't view the world through believers' eyes see a troubling process of de-civilization, and immediately wonder what policies could be implemented to reverse the process. The optics matter. · Aug 25 at 6:24pm
No one to my knowledge has said that there are "no policy problems"; most conservatives, religious and non-religious, would argue that there are any number of policy problems, and any number of changes that should be implemented that have nothing to do with religion. What many of us would also argue, however, is that the decline of religious practice is part and parcel of the process of de-civilization you mention.
Jun '11
Re: Education and Religious Practice
Forrest Cox
Those who, on the other hand, don't view the world through believers' eyes see a troubling process of de-civilization, and immediately wonder what policies could be implemented to reverse the process. The optics matter.
So......what policies would you recommend? To reverse the process, I mean.
Dec '10
Re: Education and Religious Practice
I have trouble knowing where to begin to respond. Should we discuss how wrong you are about what the faithful think about your potential for decency? We're not worried about your success in this life, Forrest.
Or how we ended up conversing about atheism versus faith rather than policy, culture and civilization because your delicate sensibilities were offended by the observation that uneducated whites are less religious than educated whites?
Or your extremely un-conservative view that culture can be improved by just the right government policy?
Or the absurd notion that moral behavior is a product of evolution, that is, common ancestry, random mutation, and natural selection? Does evolution explain everything? Really? Seems like faith in a religious tenet at some point, doesn't it?
Or your seeming unwillingness to admit that religion, specifically Judaism and its relation Christianity, had anything to do with the virtuous civilization for which you are so concerned?
Or your credulous belief that "reason" and "evidence" together with evolved human nature, by themselves, are capable of forming virtuous individuals, let alone virtuous societies? It may work for you, but evidence of widespread efficacy is scant.
Dec '10
Re: Education and Religious Practice
Here's one answer to my question: Education liberalizes religious views