Education, Intelligence, Socioeconomic Class & Belief in Religion

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago

   
   People who are more educated, highly intelligent, & of the higher socioeconomic classes tend not to be religious.  They contend that religion is an outdated, primitive, & even superstitious practice.  However, those who are less intelligent, less educated, & of the lower socioeconomic classes find solace in religion which explains why religion appeals to such people.   In fact, many poor people see religion as their escape from a seemingly harsh world.   While those who are more educated, highly intelligent, & of a higher socioeconomic class are discerning regarding religion, seeing it as nonsense, those who are less educated, less intelligent, & of a lower socioeconomic class view religion as valid.  Your thoughts on the subject?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Kyler J Falkposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      It sounds correct if we exclude more-educated from that list. Perhaps under-educated is a better descriptor so long as we realize that does not mean ignorant, much like an undergraduate still has some work to do. Not to say it is incorrect, but without including psychology into the mix this info is a bit unfair and incomplete. 
      
      Not so much religion, but a belief system is a crucial part of the human psyche. Whether it be a solid belief in invisible sky daddy, trusting that the cow in that field is your grandmother reincarnated, or measuring a probable lack of an existent deity, so long as your beliefs are mostly-solid in your mind then you are fitting the bill of a healthy individual (assuming you have the other pillars of psychology solid in your life as well).
      
      As for intelligence and socioeconomic class, that does seem to be the trend, and education could play a part in it but I would think less so. I spent the first 18 years of my life in religion-born ignorance despite being #16 in a top-competing, competitive education school. It took a foundation-shaking realization, and experiencing a, "true spiritual experience," in which I witnessed the book of Revelation pan out to realize God was either non-existent, or God was evil. Of course, I'm projecting my experience here and it is as inaccurate as anyone else's projection. 
      
      Taking years to study and measure the likely existence of God using empirical data, I finally dismissed deities as improbable, but found religion to be a wonderful system for those who utilize it for both personal and financial gain. I even helped a few cultists write their tenets utilizing the same systems that, "accepted," religions utilize. Nonetheless, I find more comfort in the tangible than I do in the improbable and mystical.
      
      An addition to all this for those who take the stance, "Wouldn't it be better to believe and find out there is no God, than to disbelieve and find out there is one?"
      
      To which I ask, would it not be better to believe the man known to be a demagogue, a con artist, and a swindler in case he is telling the truth, than to deny such an individual and miss out on a life-changing opportunity? Almost every God seems to me to be a malignant narcissist who cannot uphold what is deemed their supposed tenets, and punish those who are the same. Without interpretation away from original intention, most holy texts would be so far from acceptable that religion would be scorned by all but social outcasts and extremists.

      replyreport