Why are atheists better educated than Christians? Free Reprint Article

NotifySnack

Christian Articles for All of your Publishing Needs!

LIKE US

Translate this Page Here

Word Count: 1384

Send Article To Friend

Print/Use Article

Contact James Barringer

Why are atheists better educated than Christians?

by James Barringer
5/09/2011 / Christian Apologetics

In a recent Washington Post article titled "Why Do Americans Still Dislike Atheists?" (hint: it's partly because of whiny articles like that one), Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman offer their take on atheism, and unsurprisingly, it turns out that they're in favor of it. When they take a rare break from committing logical fallacies, like mentioning that crime is lower in a secular nation like Japan than it is in the "religious" United States as if religion was the cause of all that crime, they mention that "As individuals, atheists tend to score high on measures of intelligence, especially verbal ability and scientific literacy." This statistic, a close cousin of the assertion that atheists are better educated on average than church people, gets trotted out from time to time, so let's examine it.

First, I need to say how refreshing it is that intellectual elitism is still alive and well in the 21st century! I thought that we as a nation were over the idea of judging people based on how smart they were or how much school they had completed, but apparently these atheists have been so busy studying that they haven't read the memo. Be that as it may, should it concern us that the average atheist is better educated than the average Christian? Isn't that a good indicator that, the more enlightened a person becomes, the more likely he is to cast off foolish superstition?

Well, no. In fact, it's exactly the opposite: the more educated a person is, the more likely he is to embrace foolish superstition, such as atheism. A pair of scientific studies conducted recently (and brought to my attention by a humor website, not a Jesus website) demonstrated that more educated people are more likely to fall for email scams. "Dear sir, I'm the rightful heir to the throne of Ugubuguay, and if you let me move 40 million dollars through your bank account, I'll let you keep 10%." Yeah, those scams. College- and grad-school-educated people are more likely than high school dropouts to fall for those scams, so it doesn't appear that simply being better-educated makes a person more likely to be correct in the judgments he makes. Also, the better educated a person is, the more likely he is to believe in paranormal phenomena like ghosts: 23% of college freshmen compared with 34% of grad-school students think that hauntings are real. "Casting off foolish superstition," indeed. It seems to me that, the more worldly-smarts a person accumulates, the less his beliefs correspond with reality...which is why he's more likely to be an atheist,

I need to mention that I'm not an anti-intellectual. I have a college degree and I'm almost through with my master's degree, and I think it would be absolutely wonderful if more of my Christian friends were well-educated so there were other voices besides mine writing these essays. My attitude, though, is that education is only worthwhile if it's brought under God's banner. Anything without God is worthless. Education without God is folly. Morality without God leads to eugenics. I am a wholehearted believer in education. I'm also a wholehearted believer that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7), so it doesn't matter how educated you are; if you begin without God, every step you take is one step further down the wrong path.

But there's a larger problem, one that even years of secular education should be sufficient to solve. The problem is this: Christianity is not a philosophy. It's not something that either you choose to believe or you choose not to. It is a historical event, which can be the object of historical inquiry; either it happened or it didn't. Since, as I mention frequently, I was a historian before I became a Christian, I'm pretty well acquainted with how to conduct a historical inquiry, as should be any atheist who has completed a college education, and the fact remains that the historical evidence for Jesus is pretty airtight.

We have multiple sources, many of them primary sources, both from Jesus' own disciples who were eyewitnesses (Matthew, John), two guys who interviewed eyewitnesses (Luke, Mark), secular historians who were not themselves Christians (Pliny the Younger and others), and even the Pharisees, Jesus' own enemies (references in Talmud history). When the pro-Jesus, neutral-Jesus, and anti-Jesus crowd all agree that the man lived, did miracles, and was crucified on the day before Passover, anyone with half a brain has to admit that it probably happened exactly that way. This is doubly true when you consider that Jesus' followers had no reason to inflate their stories; Jesus told them all that he was going to die and that they should expect the same if they followed him. So not only was there no incentive to make up a story, there was a great disincentive. Quite simply, there is no reason, no way with logical and intellectual integrity, for a person (especially a well-educated person!) to say that the Christ event never happened. And if it happened, then Christianity is true, and must be followed simply because it's true if for no other reason. So why should I respect atheism, a position which is comprised 100% of voluntary ignorance of history?

I have no doubt that the average atheist is a nice person who is honestly trying his hardest. Unfortunately, though, I have not met many atheists who are genuinely willing to reconsider their positions. They seem (as do most Christians, I will grant) more interested in defending what they believe than in talking seriously about the alternatives. Believe it or not, this is because they're smarter than the average person! Consider this quote from Michael Shermer, who wrote a book called "Why People Believe Weird Things": "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." I would consider the voluntary ignorance of history to be a non-smart reason. You can also consider this quote by Karen Blumenthal, who was writing about the investment-scam study: "The typical investment-scam victim is an optimistic married man in his later 50s who has a higher-than-average knowledge of financial matters and deep confidence in his own judgment." The "deep confidence" bit is where we encounter problems, because if the average atheist really is smarter than we are, and really does have higher than average confidence in his own judgment, that means he's more likely to stick to his flawed beliefs even when everyone else knows they're flawed, simply because his confidence in himself is higher than his confidence in the historical record. That's a recipe for failure.

So what we see is that, if a person pursues education but does not submit his intellect to God's will, there's no telling what kind of crazy beliefs he will adopt, such as ghosts, the legitimacy of an heir to the throne of Ugubuguay, or atheism. Scientific studies - atheists' favorite kind - like the ones I referenced show that higher education means you're more likely to believe weird stuff. Garry Kasparov, a chess grandmaster, believes that the world is 500 years old, for instance - the man's a genius, but genius doesn't mean you're more likely to be right about anything. It does, apparently, mean that you're more likely to ignore gigantic amounts of historical proof when they don't say what you want them to say.

It may sound like I'm bashing atheists, but I'm not. I will, however, bash atheism all day long, because it is an intellectually hollow and historically ignorant worldview which does not deserve any respect. The scientific data indicate that any atheist who reads this will probably not be receptive to what I'm saying anyway, because of the same deep confidence in his own judgment that makes him more likely to fall victim to an investment scam. That's why I don't feel the need to put on the kid-gloves here. If I treat the viewpoint harshly and give its proponents something to think about, great, but I really don't see the need to put on airs when Paul and Zuckerman are attempting to link crime to church attendance. Credit to them for speaking their mind, and I trust that any true freethinker won't mind when I do the same.

Jim Barringer is a 38-year-old writer, musician, and teacher. More of his work can be found at facebook.com/jmbarringer. This work may be reprinted for any purpose so long as this bio and statement of copyright is included.

Article Source: http://www.faithwriters.com-CHRISTIAN WRITERS

If you died today, are you absolutely certain that you would go to heaven? You can be! Click here and TRUST JESUS NOW