Why Are Engineers The Most Religious (& Radical) Academics?

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Religiosity of engineers
The Carnegie survey reveals an even more surprising fact, hitherto unnoticed, that
strengthens the suspicion that the engineers’ mindset plays a part in their proneness
not only to radicalise to the right of the political spectrum but do so with a religious
slant: engineers turn out to be by far the most religious group of all academics – 66.5
per cent, followed again by 61.7 in economics, 49.9 in sciences, 48.8 per cent of
social scientists, 46.3 of doctors and 44.1 per cent of lawyers, the most sceptical of the
lot. Engineers and economists are also those who oppose religion least (3.7% and
3.0%), and, together with the humanities, those who more strongly embrace it (Table
16).

I found this via this Oxford report (it's fascinating, but warning, it's 90 pages long - my excerpt is front page 51), which studied the fascinating overrepresentation of 'hard' scientists and engineers in Islamist insurgent movement, which I came to from [urlhttp://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevo ... -many.html]this[/url] blog. It's been an interesting factoid (though I've had difficulty finding the purported study this is based on) that's been circulating for a long time that, for various reasons, Liberal and Fine Arts graduates and academics are the least religious of those who do receive a higher education, but I'm interested in this specific aspect. It's an interesting correlation that can be found in Western countries as well (the {in}famous Salem Hypothesis), but I think it's a topic that can provoke some good discussion, particularly on this board.

[Samuel]

that's been circulating for a long time that, for various reasons, Liberal and Fine Arts graduates and academics are the least religious of those who do receive a higher education,

What? I thought biologists were filled with the most atheists.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

They are, but biologists are counted with other scientists to water that figure down.

The answer is easy--the social sciences do expose you to criticism of ideology. Whereas in hard science you can focus very hard on your own given field and essentially dismiss external evidence in other areas. In short, thermodynamics and circuit principles don't invalidate the Bible. That requires you to actually apply your rational thinking skills to the Bible... Which people in engineering programmes are not forced to do.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Better than 'factoid' might be 'pseudo-fact', since, other than an impossible-to-find Carnegie study, there doesn't appear to be much statistical backing of it. I've heard excellent conceptual reasons for why this would be so - the use of deconstruction in the Humanities, the difference between exposure and amalgamation of externalities versus coherent interior worldview in the sciences and humanities respectively, but not much proof beyond that.

[Simon_Jester]

They are, but biologists are counted with other scientists to water that figure down.

The answer is easy--the social sciences do expose you to criticism of ideology. Whereas in hard science you can focus very hard on your own given field and essentially dismiss external evidence in other areas. In short, thermodynamics and circuit principles don't invalidate the Bible. That requires you to actually apply your rational thinking skills to the Bible... Which people in engineering programmes are not forced to do.

Also, this works the other way: if you're a religious fanatic, you tend to view the scientific community with contempt as a bunch of filthy atheists. This tends to discourage you from joining their ranks.

Whereas engineering is something even a religious fanatic can respect, because it involves actually building stuff, things like that. It's closer to the parts of the world they're comfortable with, and therefore a better place to go if you're a religious fanatic with sufficient brains to not want to be a middle manager or blue collar worker all your life.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Anecdotally, I can concur with Simon Jester. People of middle eastern descent seem significantly overrepresented in engineering here in California, including the professors, who note that engineering is much more respected in their countries of origin than here in the U.S. (I am tacitly assuming of course that those areas and cultures are more prone to fundamentalism than others). Most of the students I know, while not especially religious, are still practicing Muslims and Christians, to the point of fasting during appropriate periods even during school days.

And in my experience, much of the typical engineering curriculum does not involve general questioning or anything like philosophy of science, focusing more on applied math and applicable subject-specific information. Not to mention that those classes that were most abstract or scienifically/epistemologically oriented were the classes most dreaded by engineering students (assisted by the extreme quirkiness of some of the professors). The average student could go through the entire bachelor's program without really having his (since engineers are nearly always male here) worldview challenged. Also, most of the professors here at CSUN come from a private practice background rather than primarily research, which may skew things since it seems business interests usually align with conservative views.

[Teebs]

Oddly from my experience at university, biologists seemed to the most religious of the hard scientists, obviously that's anecdotal, but it went completely against what I'd have expected.

Medics were probably the most religious group overall (if you ignore theology students).

[Starglider]

If we're swapping anecdotes, AI and neuroscience people are in my experience overwhelmingly atheist or agnostic, with most of the remainder subscribing to nontraditional views e.g. pantheism.

[Surlethe]

However, we really shouldn't be swapping anecdotes. Anybody have any arguments or additional statistics to throw in the mix?

[Serafina]

Oddly from my experience at university, biologists seemed to the most religious of the hard scientists, obviously that's anecdotal, but it went completely against what I'd have expected.

Medics were probably the most religious group overall (if you ignore theology students).

Um - are we talking about BIOLOGY students or MEDICINE students here?

Thats two different things - and i could imagine that the study of medicine fits very well with religion, since it does not touch most of "the divine".

[Mayabird]

Yeah, that's an outlier. Statistically something like 90% of all biologists are flat out atheists, with that 10% including Deists, secular-ish Jews who kinda keep that God idea around out of cultural obligations, agnostics who just can't take the plunge, etc. It's partly because most religious people run away screaming from biology when they realize how much of its study involves evolution (answer: most of it, and it can be applied to all of it, and usually is) and partly because biologists have to confront the actual harsh, cruel, badly-put-together-over-billions-of-years world of living creatures and it's really hard to believe in any sort of intelligent or not-assholish deity when there's none to be found and it's all so very, very wrong. By far the least religious of any professional group.

This is also partly why there's such animosity against med students from bio students. Med students have a much greater tendency to be little religious pricks who do stuff like make self-righteous comments about how they're taking Anatomy which is a real science without that evolution crap and how God something something being nice to people something something.

Anyway, back to engineers.

[Teebs]

Um - are we talking about BIOLOGY students or MEDICINE students here?

Thats two different things - and i could imagine that the study of medicine fits very well with religion, since it does not touch most of "the divine".

Both separately. I was saying the biology students were much more religious than I'd have expected and the medicine students were (perhpaps less surprisingly) the most religious group around.

[Akhlut]

Yeah, that's an outlier. Statistically something like 90% of all biologists are flat out atheists, with that 10% including Deists, secular-ish Jews who kinda keep that God idea around out of cultural obligations, agnostics who just can't take the plunge, etc. It's partly because most religious people run away screaming from biology when they realize how much of its study involves evolution (answer: most of it, and it can be applied to all of it, and usually is) and partly because biologists have to confront the actual harsh, cruel, badly-put-together-over-billions-of-years world of living creatures and it's really hard to believe in any sort of intelligent or not-assholish deity when there's none to be found and it's all so very, very wrong. By far the least religious of any professional group.

Nothing like learning about parasites like human bot flies to disavow one of the idea of a benevolent, intervening deity.

But, yeah, when I was getting my BS in biology, I only knew of one out-and-out Christian getting a degree in biology (or, at least, natural resources, which ends up being almost the same ). Anyway, she started out as a full-on evangelical Lutheran, literal 6-day creationist and is now a believer in theistic evolution. And most of my biology professors definitely had the feeling of being people who were completely areligious at best, if not out and out atheists.

So, I'd have to say that exposure to evolution and it's vast evidence definitely reduces religious beliefs because, goddamn, nature really is red in tooth and claw.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yeah, that's an outlier. Statistically something like 90% of all biologists are flat out atheists, with that 10% including Deists, secular-ish Jews who kinda keep that God idea around out of cultural obligations, agnostics who just can't take the plunge, etc. It's partly because most religious people run away screaming from biology when they realize how much of its study involves evolution (answer: most of it, and it can be applied to all of it, and usually is) and partly because biologists have to confront the actual harsh, cruel, badly-put-together-over-billions-of-years world of living creatures and it's really hard to believe in any sort of intelligent or not-assholish deity when there's none to be found and it's all so very, very wrong. By far the least religious of any professional group.

Nothing like learning about parasites like human bot flies to disavow one of the idea of a benevolent, intervening deity.

But, yeah, when I was getting my BS in biology, I only knew of one out-and-out Christian getting a degree in biology (or, at least, natural resources, which ends up being almost the same ). Anyway, she started out as a full-on evangelical Lutheran, literal 6-day creationist and is now a believer in theistic evolution. And most of my biology professors definitely had the feeling of being people who were completely areligious at best, if not out and out atheists.

So, I'd have to say that exposure to evolution and it's vast evidence definitely reduces religious beliefs because, goddamn, nature really is red in tooth and claw.

There are maybe 3-4 people who are religious in my entire department, and that includes the graduate students (in fact... 2-3 of those 3-4 are grad students)

[Melchior]

This is also partly why there's such animosity against med students from bio students. Med students have a much greater tendency to be little religious pricks who do stuff like make self-righteous comments about how they're taking Anatomy which is a real science without that evolution crap and how God something something being nice to people something something.

Those people can only be rather poor students; for example, it's basically impossible to understand the anatomy of the nervous system without a through grasp of its evolutionary history. Then again, I don't know anyone in med school that has any sort of doubt about evolution, creationism is at best the punchline in a joke. The only thing resembling animosity that I have heard (I'm in med school, but have several friends that study biology) are remarks harping on the fact that our exams are typically much harder, but it's objectively true.

[Serafine666]

It seems like, as Simon_Jester pointed out, engineering would feel more open to many religions because it doesn't cross over into religion in any way, raising no particular question about a given religious belief. On the other hand, science more challenges the text of the Bible than any specific religious concept which, given the scientific focus on empiricism, observation, experimentation, and mathematical establishment, isn't all that surprising; as William of Ockham tried to point out to his contemporaries (which, as Mike Wong pointed out, was the point of the famous "Ockham's Razor"), faith isn't open to being proved logically or scientifically. I suppose this brings up an obvious question: if you take for granted that religion cannot be proved by science and that science does not directly bear on religion, why does increased understanding of science cause people to doubt their religious beliefs? I just don't see how one crosses over into the territory of the other or vice versa unless you're getting into ethics which is a TOTALLY different can of worms.

[Adam Reynolds]

It seems like, as Simon_Jester pointed out, engineering would feel more open to many religions because it doesn't cross over into religion in any way, raising no particular question about a given religious belief. On the other hand, science more challenges the text of the Bible than any specific religious concept which, given the scientific focus on empiricism, observation, experimentation, and mathematical establishment, isn't all that surprising; as William of Ockham tried to point out to his contemporaries (which, as Mike Wong pointed out, was the point of the famous "Ockham's Razor"), faith isn't open to being proved logically or scientifically. I suppose this brings up an obvious question: if you take for granted that religion cannot be proved by science and that science does not directly bear on religion, why does increased understanding of science cause people to doubt their religious beliefs? I just don't see how one crosses over into the territory of the other or vice versa unless you're getting into ethics which is a TOTALLY different can of worms.

What you take for granted is the answer to your question. There is a conflict between religion and science, I think that the reason is that many religious individuals like to take their gospel at face value. If they do this and find a contradiction between science and their religion they must pick one.

[Serafine666]

What you take for granted is the answer to your question. There is a conflict between religion and science, I think that the reason is that many religious individuals like to take their gospel at face value. If they do this and find a contradiction between science and their religion they must pick one.

While that may be well and good, what is this conflict you speak of? Perhaps I'm highly unusual among religious people but I don't see any conflict between a scientific description of the process by which, say, the Earth came to exist in its present form and an assertion that God utilized the process described to create the Earth. Naturally, the first statement cannot be proved or tested and is not the simplest theory for which there is evidence; it fails Ockham's Razor. But it also does not introduce a contradiction between the religious view and the scientific one.

[Lord of the Abyss]

While that may be well and good, what is this conflict you speak of? Perhaps I'm highly unusual among religious people but I don't see any conflict between a scientific description of the process by which, say, the Earth came to exist in its present form and an assertion that God utilized the process described to create the Earth. Naturally, the first statement cannot be proved or tested and is not the simplest theory for which there is evidence; it fails Ockham's Razor. But it also does not introduce a contradiction between the religious view and the scientific one.

But that view of things has little to do with what religious books actually say happened. Granted, even some major religions like Catholicism have now gone down the "theistic evolution" route; but in many ways that's a surrender. In those cases, religion lost the conflict with science, and religion was forced back to a position that pretty much only has unfalsifiability to recommend it.

And most Americans are creationists; so yes, at least in this country that is an unusual position. Most people here hold religious views that put them at odds with science.

[Serafine666]

But that view of things has little to do with what religious books actually say happened. Granted, even some major religions like Catholicism have now gone down the "theistic evolution" route; but in many ways that's a surrender. In those cases, religion lost the conflict with science, and religion was forced back to a position that pretty much only has unfalsifiability to recommend it.

Perhaps but I think it's plausible to say that since the Bible only asserts that God created the world, it is no surrender to concede that science is capable of discovering the means by which He did it.

And most Americans are creationists; so yes, at least in this country that is an unusual position. Most people here hold religious views that put them at odds with science.

I suspect that is because I adhere to a mildly unusual Christian creed. And I was SO hoping that I wasn't as unusual as I believed.

[Lord of the Abyss]

But that view of things has little to do with what religious books actually say happened. Granted, even some major religions like Catholicism have now gone down the "theistic evolution" route; but in many ways that's a surrender. In those cases, religion lost the conflict with science, and religion was forced back to a position that pretty much only has unfalsifiability to recommend it.

Perhaps but I think it's plausible to say that since the Bible only asserts that God created the world, it is no surrender to concede that science is capable of discovering the means by which He did it.

It asserts quite a bit more than that; it goes into details; about what he created, in what order and so forth. Theistic evolution and claims like it are a retreat from the kind of claims that can and have been proven wrong; instead it is such a limited claim of God's actions that they are indistinguishable from a world where there's no God at all. Which is of course the point; there's simply no evidence for gods of any kind, so any claims compatible with the evidence have to avoid making any claims that God has done anything noticeable.

Which is quite different from the historical and still popular view of God blatantly meddling in everything, working miracles and creating critters from dust. And a definite retreat on the part of religion.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What you take for granted is the answer to your question. There is a conflict between religion and science, I think that the reason is that many religious individuals like to take their gospel at face value. If they do this and find a contradiction between science and their religion they must pick one.

While that may be well and good, what is this conflict you speak of? Perhaps I'm highly unusual among religious people but I don't see any conflict between a scientific description of the process by which, say, the Earth came to exist in its present form and an assertion that God utilized the process described to create the Earth. Naturally, the first statement cannot be proved or tested and is not the simplest theory for which there is evidence; it fails Ockham's Razor. But it also does not introduce a contradiction between the religious view and the scientific one.

Fundamentally it is an epistemological conflict. The way of answering questions about the universe in science and religion are completely different and it requires a fair amount of cognitive compartmentalization in order to utilize both. If you are willing to accept one claim based upon zero objective evidence, or even in spite of objective evidence what is the stopping point? At what point do you say "and now claims are subject to rational thought and empiricism"? You Cant. At least not in a way that is not completely arbitrary and intellectually inconsistent.

[Simon_Jester]

And most Americans are creationists; so yes, at least in this country that is an unusual position. Most people here hold religious views that put them at odds with science.

I have often wondered about the studies that show that sort of thing; how do they phrase the question. If you ask "do you believe that a deity of some sort created the universe?" you may get a different answer than if you ask "do you believe in the literal truth of [insert creation myth here]?" And yet, depending on your definition, one may qualify as a classical "creationist" (the annoying ones who like to pretend the world is 6000 years old or was formed by Odin from the body of a giant or whatever), and the other may not.

[Serafine666]

It asserts quite a bit more than that; it goes into details; about what he created, in what order and so forth. Theistic evolution and claims like it are a retreat from the kind of claims that can and have been proven wrong; instead it is such a limited claim of God's actions that they are indistinguishable from a world where there's no God at all. Which is of course the point; there's simply no evidence for gods of any kind, so any claims compatible with the evidence have to avoid making any claims that God has done anything noticeable.

I suppose it is all in how you see the role of God in the world. It seems like the majority of monotheistic religions almost conceive of God as some great worker of magic like the center act in a 3-ring circus. If one looks at God in this way, a world where God performs miraculous feats by the application of natural laws which science can discover is indistinguishable from a world in which God does not exist at all. I grant you that the existence of God is not a scientific assertion (I think I started out by saying that with the reference to Ockham's Razor) but the conception of God in a role in which He is to us as we would be to Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") is quite different than conceiving of a world in which there is no God at all.

Which is quite different from the historical and still popular view of God blatantly meddling in everything, working miracles and creating critters from dust. And a definite retreat on the part of religion.

I suppose that as a general statement, that is true but it is highly dependent upon which religion we're talking about. There are some religions that are more akin to systems of philosophy than what we think of as a religion (that is, a system of belief centering around deity).

[Serafine666]

Fundamentally it is an epistemological conflict. The way of answering questions about the universe in science and religion are completely different and it requires a fair amount of cognitive compartmentalization in order to utilize both. If you are willing to accept one claim based upon zero objective evidence, or even in spite of objective evidence what is the stopping point? At what point do you say "and now claims are subject to rational thought and empiricism"? You can't. At least not in a way that is not completely arbitrary and intellectually inconsistent.

Do not underestimate the strange ways of intellectual compartmentalization. There is no inconsistency at all in building a mental box called "Religion" in which you put your claims that you know are either unprovable or incapable of disproof and then building a mental box called "Science" in which you put your claims that can be tested. I imagine that it must be quite easy because numerous scientists, engineers, and mathematicians ranging from Copernicus to Newton to Planck seemed to have no trouble generating valid and valuable science while believing in God. They may even have believed that God revealed their scientific observations to them in a beam of magical white light (although I doubt this) but this doesn't make their contributions any less critical to the progression of various scientific disciplines.