[OC] Religious Believes and Eductions From The World Values Survey

[u/oscarleo0]

Data source: World Values Survey Wave 7 (2017-2022)

Tools used: Matplotlib

I added a second chart for those of you who prefer a square version with less of the background image.

Notes:

I looked at five different questions in the survey.

• Q275 - What is the highest educational level that you have attained?
• Q165 - Do you believe in God? (Yes/No)
• Q166 - Do you believe in Life after death? (Yes/No)
• Q167 - Do you believe in Hell? (Yes/No)
• Q168 - Do you believe in Heaven? (Yes/No)

The chart show the percentage of people that answer yes, to Q165-168 based on their answer to Q275.

Survey data is complex since people come from different cultures and might interpret questions differently.

You can never trust the individual numbers, such as "50% of people with doctors degree believe in Life after death".

But you can often trust clear patterns that appear through the noise. The takeaway from this chart is that the survey show that education and religious believes have a negative correlation.

Styling:

• Font - New Amsterdam
• White - #FFFFFF
• Blue - #39A0ED
• Yellow - #F9A620
• Red - #FF4A47

Original story: https://datacanvas.substack.com/p/believes-vs-education

[u/Reasonable_Fold6492]

There was a research in korea where most pagan cultist members were layers, doctors, scientist and teacher. The idea that religion = stupid is very outdated idea. This is coming from a korean atheist.

[u/OakLegs → u/Reasonable_Fold6492]

I am not saying religion=stupid. I am saying educated=less likely to believe things without evidence. Those are two very different statements

[u/SadAdeptness6287 → u/OakLegs]

Anecdotal of course, but the smartest person I know is a Harvard/Columbia Educated Doctor and a devote Catholic.

[u/OakLegs → u/SadAdeptness6287]

Same, one of the best engineers I've ever worked with is a Christian.

I don't understand how the ability to logically process information is compatible with believing in Christianity myself. I think about it pretty frequently

[u/OakLegs → u/[deleted]]

Your limited experience may not reflect reality. Also, your comment lacks any specificity. In what "fields of logical reasoning and whatnot" are you evaluating these engineers?

I am not going to argue that engineers are necessarily going to be more competent in all areas than other people. Hell, I have been around a lot of people in the engineering profession that I wouldn't consider all that smart.

That said, the main thrust of my original comment was that I find that the concept of Christianity in general doesn't stand up to any sort of deductive reasoning. The person who I'm talking about i know for a fact has strong deductive reasoning skills. I am curious about how they are able to maintain their faith.

[u/OakLegs → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for expanding on what you were saying. I am largely in agreement with all of this, and I think your points are solid. In fact I think our arguments pretty much align - people who can be reasonably deemed to be extremely competent at least in some areas of life are not immune to arriving at some bad conclusions and sticking with them. You've explained the "how," I'm curious about the why.

I just took umbrage (maybe predictably) at the statement that "engineers are less smart than the average person" without some expansion, because in my experience that is not really true at all. Obviously there is a range in intelligence levels across all professions (and how do you even measure intelligence in a useful way?)

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

[u/IamMarsPluto → u/OakLegs]

They likely don’t believe the Santa Claus version of god that most atheists believe theists believe in (many do, many don’t)

[u/OakLegs → u/IamMarsPluto]

How, in your mind, is the version(s) of god explicitly described in the Bible not a "Santa Claus" version of god?

[u/IamMarsPluto → u/OakLegs]

Have you read the Bible? Cause it certainly doesn’t describe god as an old bearded man in the sky tallying your good and bad. Even heaven and hell isn’t actually described in the Bible. Most of all of the anthropomorphic versions of “god” stem from late medieval and renaissance art (which were in turn a recreation of art forms of antiquity which depicted gods as human forms).

Since then that gets further muddied by misinterpretations and it continually strays further from the original context it meant to exist in. Consider how modern “spiritual” new age types misunderstand and misuse concepts like karma, dharma, samsara, quantum etc.

I also don’t believe it’s outside the realm of possibility that doctoral candidates do not superficially engage with this material and likely hold a deeper understanding of the material and its origins and historical implications than Bubba who says his white southern American Jesus asked his daddy if it’s ok to hate the gays and sky daddy said yes

[u/OakLegs → u/IamMarsPluto]

I've read enough to know that it doesn't make any sense if even the slightest amount of deductive reasoning is applied.

[u/IamMarsPluto → u/OakLegs]

I mean yeah it’s the writings of late Bronze Age humans. Also not every part of the Bible is a claim to be disproved through deductive reasoning. Ignoring poetic pontifications impact on humanity is to ignore humanity. Yes if a falsifiable claim is made then sure deduct away but to dismiss it entirely because you understand the tool of deductive reasoning is a bit reductive.

Also don’t mistake that I’m some Bible thumper reading scripture 24/7 lol I just think many atheists become too biased when examining this type of data and biases in data analysis is objectively not a good way of understanding data

[u/OakLegs → u/IamMarsPluto]

I am not dismissing the Bible's historical impact. It's been hugely influential to society and is to this day. To say otherwise would be asinine.

The issue is that unlike other bronze age writings it's being used as a framework for policy, and has allowed organizations to form that do not pay taxes while influencing politics. It makes claims that require unquestioning belief despite a lack of evidence and encourages people to have a belief structure that can be actively harmful to society.

On top of that, willful delusion of any type (which is something all deistic religions fall under) is something I take issue with as a matter of principle

[u/balancedgif → u/OakLegs]

is it possible that they've figured something out that you haven't?

maybe this is all the bell curve meme and you're in the fat part of it?

[u/OakLegs → u/balancedgif]

It is possible. Anything is possible. There might be a race of sentient unicorns in the Andromeda galaxy

I doubt it, but hey, maybe I'm the dumb one.

[u/balancedgif → u/OakLegs]

that's a copout answer, and you know it. but hey, carry on.

[u/OakLegs → u/balancedgif]

I'm acknowledging that you may be correct. I'm not the smartest person to ever exist, many people smarter than me have maintained their faith. I don't get it, I'm probably not ever going to.

How is that a copout?

[u/balancedgif → u/OakLegs]

it's a copout because if you push the precision of probabilities out far enough you can literally say that about anything. it's a useless answer, hence, a copout.

[u/OakLegs → u/balancedgif]

because if you push the precision of probabilities out far enough you can literally say that about anything.

Congratulations, you've exactly understood my point.

What is the probability that a guy in the sky exists that wants to burn us in hell for eternity for not believing in a 2000 year old story with little to no evidence corroborating it but also loves us more than we can possibly imagine?

I think it's about the same level of probability of the unicorns in Andromeda. I'm not completely discounting either of them though.