I have seen the future.

Logical. Those who have poor academic performance are prone to simply accepting on simplistic faith rather then trying to think. It ought to be noted that there are academic fields of theology which would _also_ suffer for the same reasons, if someone was doing a cop-out like that.

From:

ironphoenix.livejournal.com

Good point. Quite a few Christian mystics were declared to be heretics because of their immoderate teachings. Theology, Catholic theology in particular, is a delicately balanced construction, and teaching is even more so because of the perceived need to veil the hard parts from the flock. Mystics have a habit of speaking as they feel, without taking much pause to consider the manner in which they will be understood by those who do not share their experiences.

Simplistic faith is a tricky thing, because it works very well for the person having it, but it communicates terribly. Law is not a good field for those who see with unsophisticated (honest? naive? both, really) eyes. In fact, intellectual rigor in any academic field demands a certain commitment which very few strong mystics can maintain, having a different (higher?) calling. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Ignatius of Loyola are exceptions to the rule, I think (whether or not one agrees with their thoughts). Augustine of Hippo is another candidate.

Modern theology, fortunately, is more open to mystical interpretations and expressions than, say, the scholastic theology that prevailed in the late Middle Ages.

I think I've burned enough of twk's lj bandwidth for now!

(deleted comment)

From:

You'd be right, if "faith" was an unchanging, unchosen, inborn thing, and wasn't synonymous with "failure in thinking".

Since "religious" *is* perfectly synonymous with "lousy at thinking", it's utterly unsurprising that the more religious you are, the less good you are at pursuits that require thinking.

From:

Dude, a little harsh on Darwin, Mendel, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Issac Newton and a couple others.

From:

But that doesn't mean being more religious causes you to be less good at pursuits that require thinking. It just means they covary.

Like he said, you could (and people have) substituted African American in there as the subject for academic performance, and people make the exact same argument (that African Americans are somehow incapable of thinking).

From:

Except that black people are a product of environment. On average they accomplish less in school because on average they come from a lower class, go to less effective schools, and come from a culture that is devalued by the rest of the nation.

Black people that come from affluent families and go to good schools do exactly as well as their counterparts in any race. the racial argument in this country doesn't exist. it's a classist argument. it just so happens that our class system is racist. Imagine everyone was white and it's easier to see.

In fact, if you consider that most of the poor white people in this country are deeply religious, then this study should not surprise anyone. hell, I went to a catholic high school and a methodist college and everyone there was bright because they came from families and backgrounds that focused on education and went to schools that were able to provide for them.

I always hold that the education problems we have are classist and that race, gender, and religion only really serve to mask that fact.

From:

1) Black and African American are not equivalent terms. One is a racial term; one is an ethnic term.

2) Religion is an environment. It sounds like your argument is that environment affects performance. Which means the determinant variable is not religiosity or even race, but environment.

3) The racial argument in this country does exist. One, people still use racial arguments when discussing intelligence (have you ever read The Bell Curve?) Two, when testing for the effects of discrimination, race accounts for variance that is unexplained by any other variable including socioeconomic status.

4) Your personal anecdotes are irrelevant here.

5) You 't imagine everyone is white because our country is founded on a race based system. In addition, imagining everyone is white gets rid of the cultural differences between the various ethnic groups in America.

6) You should read a book or three about sociology of education or the relationship between race and education before insisting that race is irrelevant.

7) I repeat, correlation does not equal causation. The author cited above did not prove that religiosity causes low academic performance; he simply showed that as one changes, so does the other. It's an important difference.

(deleted comment)

From:

While we're speculating, we could also maybe speculate that being irrational and ignoring reality in favour of fiction in one area of your life tends to mean that you're sometimes irrational, and ignore reality in favour of fiction.

Which would make it unsurprising that, elsewhere, you ALSO show signs of a problem that can be caused by the same kind of irrationality, applied in the same way.

Since we're speculating, of course.

(deleted comment)

From:

It's not ad hominem to point out that someone's arguments are wrong.

This includes when they argue about religion.

This especially includes when their religion contradicts reality, and they insist that reality just ain't that way.

And the more religious you are, the more you take your religion's side when it contradicts reality. That's pretty much the definition of "more religious".

From:

Actually, that is the definition of more literalist or more fundamentalist. Ironphoenix is more religious then I am, but I dare say that he likely takes reality's side more then I do.

From:

ironphoenix.livejournal.com

Actually, that is the definition of more literalist or more fundamentalist.

I agree. I would say that it's an even better definition of "more dogmatic." Assuming that all religious people are so because of belief in dogma is incorrect, although it's certainly the case for some, particularly (in my experience, so consider this anecdote, not data) the more vocal, irrational folks.

Also, thank you, Jagash.

From:

Not a problem. Honest truth; engineers tend to be more in tune with reality then hyper-theoretical systems-scale ecologists anyways in my experience anyways, even setting aside personalities.

From:

torrain.livejournal.com

First, thank you.

Second, would you have a suggestion for where to start for a book or three?

From:

I really like Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities and The Shame of the Nation.

They both talk about inequalities in schooling without being too academic or theoretical and have both hard data and interesting anecdotes.

From:

1) African American is a term terrified white people use so as not to sound like racists. I know not one black person that's even even BEEN to Africa, let alone came from there.

2) I am saying that, actually. I think economics has a way bigger hand than anything else, but the expectations and focus of your culture has a lot to do with it as well. If I had been raised to believe that education was not relevant, I'd never have bothered in school.

3) I get that, but I'm not sure I think it makes as big a difference as the rest of the environment. Sure, if you grow up in a poor black area of columbus here, you've got a very different childhood than someone who grows up in a rich area of town, but race is really only a factor there because of the numbers. there are white people in that poor neighborhood, too, and they go to the same schools as the other kids and I suspect they perform the same, academically. I could be wrong there, but it seems that way.

4) I'm not sure why. I was educated as was everyone else I know.

5) haven't we covered this before? I was born with one point of view. Insert any racial group you want in the statement, it works out the same. I will not apologize for using myself as the default in my own mind. that's not racism or sexism, it's just my point of view.

6) I will. But the idea that physical factors determine values or intellect is silly. If you want to consider race to be a collection of cultural norms held more often by one race than another, that has merit, but I think that it's a muddy word, as it related to both your physical heritage as well as your cultural heritage.

7) True, but it's a really boring correlation without assuming a bit of causality. Which, not being a sociologist or the person running the study in anyway, i am allowed to do.

From:

1) Wrong. African American is a term black people came up with for themselves. It describes Americans with sub-Saharan African ancestry, i.e. people whose forefathers were slaves. If you don't know, look it up, but don't make stuff up.

2) Whoa. This may be a surprise, but African Americans aren't afraid of education. There's this little thing called structure which affects people's educational opportunities, like for example, how the school system is funded.

3) You are wrong. Refer to #1, if you don't know, look it up, but don't make stuff up.

4) Anecdotes are not data. Your personal experience is not representative of anything else except your personal experience, and I don't care about your personal experiences. If you want to convince me of something, you need a sample larger than N=1.

5) The concept "privilege" is something you should familiarize yourself with since it's going to taint all of your viewpoints.

6) I'm not saying physical factors determine values or intellect. I'm saying being a racial or ethnic minority in this culture has a significant effect on the outcome of education. Once again, if you don't know, look it up, but don't pretend you do.

7) Except, when you infer causality in a correlational model that makes you, well, wrong. Really, really wrong. Basic math. You should learn it.

Until you have a bit more to back up your statements than, "Well I know someone who...," this conversation is utterly pointless. You made a number of unfounded statements in your post above, and, quite frankly, I'm disinterested in talking to someone who revels in his ignorance.

From:

1) and it's a bullshit term that they don't use anymore, either. When was the last time you heard a black person call themselves an african american? language changes over time. Time was you were supposed to call black people colored to be politically correct and that didn't stick either. Your point only proves race to be a myth that we made up to explain the color of someone's skin.

2) wasn't that my whole point? That black people are often poor in our country (why is a debate left for another time because it's a vicious circle) and therefore get shafted of educations and educators?

3) I wonder what point you think I' wrong about. What poor white children go to school with poor black children? Or are you dying for there to be an intellectual difference between the races? because if you think there is, I'll point the wrong finger back at you.

4) all data is personal experience. Care or not. One study is also not a complete data set and your is not m ore valid than mine.

5) I don't argue the point. In fact, privilege is exactly the point of my argument. Are you even reading, or just flaming for the hell of it?

6) I don't disagree. I just think that it's less about being a racial minority and more about being an economic minority.

I'm not saying that our culture is not built to keep racial minorities down. it clearly is. And that system is part of the reason that racial minorities often get stuck with crappy education systems. But if they were rich racial minorities, their education would be just as good as any other rich person. And the white people (just about the only non-racial minority) who go to the same schools as the poor minorities also get a crappy education. So the real problem is money, as it always has been.

Sure, rich white people are not into sharing the wealth, that goes without saying.

What I'm saying is that minorities are poor because of a racist system. And they get shafted on education because they're poor. I think the education system is less racist than the financial setup.

7) I guess I should have known better than I expect you to entertain outside opinions. I guess I must be a reject from the educational system. Somewhere, the racist model failed and i came out all open minded. I'll see about fixing that.

From:

So, basically, you have nothing substantive to add?

Good to know.

Bye now.

From:

At the very least placing the idea of religion above the idea of truth (or having the inability to separate them) is a problem. And the above would hold more water if christians were kept at the bottom rung of the financial ladder and sent to substandard schools.

however, the idea of religious people being compared to men versus women does hold water. those studies are predicated on the idea that men are taught to put less stock in education them women. And I suspect that a lot of religious people are taught to put less stock in facts that beliefs.

From:

aelfie.livejournal.com

Hrmmm...

I wonder if its a Jesuit School...

*checks website* Nope.

Now I am not surprised at that finding....I'd love to see that study repeated at Boston College.

From:

atlasimpure.livejournal.com

Quite.

From:

itlandm.livejournal.com

This is mildly surprising to me, since I was probably the most spiritual person in my classes... and also generally the one who would explain the stuff to my fellow students after the classes. Admittedly that was mostly economics, but we also had some law. In fact, my spiritual awakening back in high school preceded my rapid rise from average to top of the class.

Of course, that was in Norway, where complete disinterest in religion is the norm and you have to stand out and grow a spine to be spiritual. I suspect that the opposite could be the case in a church-run university in the USA.

From:

rimrunner.livejournal.com

Depends on the church. I work for Lutherans (in fact my university was founded by Norwegian immigrants; the branch of Lutherans that runs the U. is the liberal one) and although they have chapel services, a pastor, etc. whether you exhibit faith or not is pretty much a non-issue, campus-culture-wise.

A lot of the religion professors will begin the term with the following: "This is not Bible study. The purpose of this course is to critically examine religion, not to confirm your faith. If you have a problem with that, there's a church right across the street."

From:

itlandm.livejournal.com

Good point. "Professional" Christians can be pretty cold-blooded. But the people who come there may not know that until they arrive. If they think "well I'm going to this school because I am a Christian", they may have some unrealistic expectations. Jesus may forgive your sins, but he won't do your homework.

From:

rimrunner.livejournal.com

Jesus may forgive your sins, but he won't do your homework.

Hee!

It's not an issue I've encountered in the classroom, because I don't teach courses, and there really isn't much occasion for debate in a library research workshop. I have had religion professors tell me that they don't reveal their denomination (or whether they have one) to students because they don't want to provide the excuse of "Well, of course you'd say that about X, because your religious affiliation is Y."

From:

I wonder what other variables he used.

It could be he's not measuring religiosity at all, but some other concept like devotion to education, critical thinking abilities, or amount of time spent studying.

Also, as someone noted above, correlation does not equal causation.

From:

silmaril.livejournal.com

Yes, I was wondering about the time spent studying myself.

I would also love to see this study repeated at a multi-faith school and with sciences/engineering disciplines, rather than law.

From:

I'd love to see a study like that broken down by religion (or maybe broken down by religion and how "religous" that person considers themselves). IME, fundies do not do well academically, but I've yet to see a discordian or a well put together pagan who doesn't have academic achievement.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the amount of research and work one has to do to even hear about those religions let alone become practiced and conversant in them.

From:

I've yet to see a discordian or a well put together pagan who doesn't have academic achievement.

#1: I have. The plural of "anecdote", however, is still not "data".

#2: Well, you're strongly selecting, here, for geeks. Knowing what a Discordian *is* was, until very recently, something that was essentially limited to educated people. Which meant, for the most part, that the only people who knew about the book in the first place were the people with academic achievement. Discordianism is, essentially, a "religion" strictly limited to that demographic in the first place.

And you're also carefully filtering your set of pagans, too. Paganism doesn't self-select the way Discordianism does, so you've added a "well put together" filter to your grouping, so you can eliminate the My Little Pony crew.

From: