Ryan has written about the "nones" before and how a substantial number of them has dropped out of everything: School, work, church, etc. That seems to be the largest factor at work here. Government programs or family members have enabled this along with inexpensive sophisticated entertainment options (from drugs to games to videos) and the result is an increasingly large number of people who are not well socially, mentally, emotionally or financially. This does not describe all "nones" but an increasing number of them.
Going to church requires discipline, either self-discipline or communal discipline.
- People who go further in education, on average, have more self-discipline.
- People in denominations with communal discipline attend church the most regularly, even though they often lack education. The classic example is Jehovah's Witnesses.
I think that this is the one finding of Charles Murray's work that's really insightful. There's a class of people who can continue to thrive despite the lack of externally-imposed systems of meaning or social norms (i.e. without a culture). Then there's everyone else who can't. Church attendance is one metric for this, and there are many others.
Education is empowering. The more education people have, the more social capital they have. They vote at a higher rate, they are more involved in community organizations, they average larger, more diverse social networks. Religion is one of those networks. A while back I was talking with a friend who was then a local elected official, who said he regularly went to church, not because he necessarily believed in the religious tenets of his denomination, but because of the social benefits.
I'm thinking of all the people I know, including church goers and nones, highly educated and high school graduates. The primary difference i see is whether or not their parents were religious. I think everything else is almost irrelevant
As the late, great Annie Dillard wrote, "How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives." Ryan, as you note, we wish that this choice were intentional--but we know that it mainly is not.
Whether through self-selection for folks who were already intentional in their choices, or whether through the reinforcing effect of employment or education on intentionality, those who are intentional about how they spend their days are more likely to be employed and/or go to school. I think this is why the church attendance gap between education levels collapses once we control for employment--and, as you and others have shown elsewhere, why attending church positively correlates with all sorts of other intentional social behaviors.
"Grad degree" is a real mix of education, including it would seem many professional degrees that are unlikely to select for or instill lower levels of belief, unlike "academic" degrees especially in the natural sciences. Larson & Witham (1998) replicated a much earlier study showing the levels of disbelief in scientists. Their conclusion? "In 1996, we repeated Leuba’s 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba’s 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents." If available, it would be nice to see attendance for graduate degree holders by discipline, or even separately for professional vs academic programs.
Short summary: It's the arts majors who are the least religious. Nursing and finance are pretty close to tied for most religious. Pre-med, biology, neuroscience, and molecular biology are all much, much more likely to be religious than English majors.
Thanks, good start. Need something like this for grad programs. But several of the graphs (e.g., disaffiliation by major) do suggest applied/professional vs academic distinction even at the undergrad level.
Ryan has written about the "nones" before and how a substantial number of them has dropped out of everything: School, work, church, etc. That seems to be the largest factor at work here. Government programs or family members have enabled this along with inexpensive sophisticated entertainment options (from drugs to games to videos) and the result is an increasingly large number of people who are not well socially, mentally, emotionally or financially. This does not describe all "nones" but an increasing number of them.
Nice post thanks!
Going to church requires discipline, either self-discipline or communal discipline.
- People who go further in education, on average, have more self-discipline.
- People in denominations with communal discipline attend church the most regularly, even though they often lack education. The classic example is Jehovah's Witnesses.
I think that this is the one finding of Charles Murray's work that's really insightful. There's a class of people who can continue to thrive despite the lack of externally-imposed systems of meaning or social norms (i.e. without a culture). Then there's everyone else who can't. Church attendance is one metric for this, and there are many others.
Education is empowering. The more education people have, the more social capital they have. They vote at a higher rate, they are more involved in community organizations, they average larger, more diverse social networks. Religion is one of those networks. A while back I was talking with a friend who was then a local elected official, who said he regularly went to church, not because he necessarily believed in the religious tenets of his denomination, but because of the social benefits.
I'm thinking of all the people I know, including church goers and nones, highly educated and high school graduates. The primary difference i see is whether or not their parents were religious. I think everything else is almost irrelevant
As the late, great Annie Dillard wrote, "How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives." Ryan, as you note, we wish that this choice were intentional--but we know that it mainly is not.
Whether through self-selection for folks who were already intentional in their choices, or whether through the reinforcing effect of employment or education on intentionality, those who are intentional about how they spend their days are more likely to be employed and/or go to school. I think this is why the church attendance gap between education levels collapses once we control for employment--and, as you and others have shown elsewhere, why attending church positively correlates with all sorts of other intentional social behaviors.
"Grad degree" is a real mix of education, including it would seem many professional degrees that are unlikely to select for or instill lower levels of belief, unlike "academic" degrees especially in the natural sciences. Larson & Witham (1998) replicated a much earlier study showing the levels of disbelief in scientists. Their conclusion? "In 1996, we repeated Leuba’s 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba’s 1914 survey to gauge belief among “greater” scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents." If available, it would be nice to see attendance for graduate degree holders by discipline, or even separately for professional vs academic programs.
Happily, Ryan's already got that covered:
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/finance-majors-go-to-church-english
Short summary: It's the arts majors who are the least religious. Nursing and finance are pretty close to tied for most religious. Pre-med, biology, neuroscience, and molecular biology are all much, much more likely to be religious than English majors.
Thanks, good start. Need something like this for grad programs. But several of the graphs (e.g., disaffiliation by major) do suggest applied/professional vs academic distinction even at the undergrad level.