Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Sufficient evidence was supplied to me and that is why I am a believer.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
College students leaving religion: It's not "the science", it's "science"
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
A common explanation for why US college students have been leaving Christianity is to attribute it to them taking biology, genetics, geology, etc., being taught information that contradicts their beliefs, realizing that much of what they were taught in church isn't true, and abandoning Christianity as a result.
However, a recent study indicates that it's not specific courses of study that's responsible, rather it's studying secular science at all and subsequently learning how to question assumptions and engage in critical thinking.
Inquiry, Not Science, as the Source of Secularization in Higher Education | Sociology of Religion | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
The traditional claim in the literature on religion and science is that exposure to science leads to secularity because the claims about the natural world in the two systems are incompatible. More recently, research has narrowed this claim and shown that conflict over knowledge in the USA is primarily limited to one religion—conservative Protestantism—and only to a few fact claims. In this paper, I test this claim using longitudinal data from matched surveys taken in students’ first and fourth year of university. I find no evidence that the science is more secularizing than nonscience. I then turn to a distinction in university majors long used by sociologists of education—between majors focused on inquiry versus those focused on applying knowledge—and find that majors focused on inquiry are more likely to secularize than those focused on application. I interpret this to mean that learning to inquire secularizes.
That makes sense to me and is consistent with my experiences. I've kind of always been a critical thinker who questions everything, and it's always been a major stumbling block between me and religious friends, family, and institutions (churches). They've always struck me as a bit put off at my asking tough questions and not taking things merely on faith.
It's also nice to see that people who are raised in religious environments where critical thinking is discouraged can not only learn to engage in it, but can also enhance the skill.
I guess there's hope for everyone!
(h/t: friendly atheist)
This seems different from when I was in college. That is, those who were religious upon entering college tended to stay that way, whereas those who weren't really committed or devout might have chosen to become atheists or opened themselves up to other religions. I think, overall, in the past few decades, religious membership has decreased, so it seems logical that this stat would be reflected among college students as well.
I'm not sure about the question of whether people leave religion because of science. I don't think I've ever seen someone come out of a science class saying "Yes! I have seen the light! I am an Atheist! Science has shown me! Atheism! Atheism!"
Religion isn't even an automatic rejection of science, and even among those who do, they only reject a very small part of it.
One thing I've noticed over the years is that more and more people feel comfortable about stating their non-beliefs or their doubts in the existence of any god or gods. In the past, I think people might have felt certain societal, peer, or family pressures to continue to attend church and maintain the façade of belief, even if they didn't really believe deep down. Some might do so because they think it might help their standing in the community, gain business and social contacts. But more people might realize that they don't really need to do that and think "Why bother?"
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I doubt if sufficient reliable evidence was presented. People can be convinced by bad evidence.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It was not presented to me, I found it by myself.
Yes, people can be convinced by bad evidence, but they can also be convinced by good evidence.
Colt
Well-Known Member
Real critical thinking discerns spiritual truth.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That does not appear to be the case. At least not here. It just does not happen.
Colt
Well-Known Member
Faith is the proof of religion. It’s inexplicable really isn’t it? But you know it when you see it.
Neuropteron
Active Member
Jose Fly
I've kind of always been a critical thinker who questions everything.
Hi,
There is nothing wrong with that, actually it is an important quality required to be an informed individual as opposed to those who naively consume anything the hired distributor of church doctrines or mainstream information channels has to offer.
"Make sure of all things" 1 Thess 5:21
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
And you know it when you have it.Faith is the proof of religion. It’s inexplicable really isn’t it? But you know it when you see it.
Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.
As I say to atheists who want proof, God could have made everyone into believers, but God wants people to have faith. God also wants everyone to seek and find Him by virtue of their own innate powers for the reasons stated below. Those who find Him will be rewarded.
“ “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen… ” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
And you probably won't. Renouncing and leaving often is a process, often not easy, and often comes with second guesses, doubts, fears, and relapses.
I find it baffling and I swim in that pool.
That tends to fit with my experience in entomology. The pure science areas tended towards the more secularized end of the spectrum and the applied fields to the other. But it was not complete and all or nothing.
I tend to set aside questions of "proof," since, in my opinion, there first needs to be established some sort of framework of what, exactly, is going to be proven, and how.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Indeed, you have to have some idea of what you are looking for, and how such an entity could be proven.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
My problem with that is that there is no proof beyond what an individual may feel. Myself, I have been through what are commonly called "spiritual experiences" and while it certainly felt real, real enough that I reject the label of atheism, I have to acknowledge I don't actually know what that was. For all I know, it could have just been my brain being funny. And there's nothing to support either approach being correct. All I know is it seemed very real, but I'm only human and just can't be sure or certain of that.
We Never Know
No Slack
A common explanation for why US college students have been leaving Christianity is to attribute it to them taking biology, genetics, geology, etc., being taught information that contradicts their beliefs, realizing that much of what they were taught in church isn't true, and abandoning Christianity as a result.
However, a recent study indicates that it's not specific courses of study that's responsible, rather it's studying secular science at all and subsequently learning how to question assumptions and engage in critical thinking.
Inquiry, Not Science, as the Source of Secularization in Higher Education | Sociology of Religion | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
The traditional claim in the literature on religion and science is that exposure to science leads to secularity because the claims about the natural world in the two systems are incompatible. More recently, research has narrowed this claim and shown that conflict over knowledge in the USA is primarily limited to one religion—conservative Protestantism—and only to a few fact claims. In this paper, I test this claim using longitudinal data from matched surveys taken in students’ first and fourth year of university. I find no evidence that the science is more secularizing than nonscience. I then turn to a distinction in university majors long used by sociologists of education—between majors focused on inquiry versus those focused on applying knowledge—and find that majors focused on inquiry are more likely to secularize than those focused on application. I interpret this to mean that learning to inquire secularizes.
That makes sense to me and is consistent with my experiences. I've kind of always been a critical thinker who questions everything, and it's always been a major stumbling block between me and religious friends, family, and institutions (churches). They've always struck me as a bit put off at my asking tough questions and not taking things merely on faith.
It's also nice to see that people who are raised in religious environments where critical thinking is discouraged can not only learn to engage in it, but can also enhance the skill.
I guess there's hope for everyone!
(h/t: friendly atheist)
Just saying
Kids in college around the last 10 years or so to present grew up.....
Eating tide pods
Snorting condoms up their nose
Were raised by games and electronics more than their parents
Huffed canned air
Slept with their phone more than a partner
Etc....
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Just "lack of Faith"
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Spiritual experiences are not proof of God because God does not communicate directly with anyone except His Messengers.
The only real proof that God exists are the Messengers of God and the religions that are established thereby.
That is the proof that God wants us to look at because God sent the Messengers to be His Representatives on earth.
What about religions without such messengers? This is most Pagan faiths.
Yes, and if the question is whether or not some kind of sentient entity created the universe, one may not be able to find any evidence of such on Earth - or even inside the construct we call "the universe."
I believe that anything is possible, but I also know the universe is a pretty big place - and the Earth is just nothing but a speck within that vast place. Humans are even smaller. Our sun is just one of billions of stars in a galaxy which is one of billions of galaxies (or maybe trillions).
I honestly don't know how or why any of this came into being. I don't know if any sentient entity created all this, or if it just happened. The only thing I can really do is differentiate between that which I know to be true within objective physical reality - versus the realm of speculation and guessing, or reading the guesses of others about who or what created the universe.
And I like speculating. Speculation can be rather interesting at times. That's probably why I enjoy Star Trek and other sci-fi shows and movies.