Like for Halloween and Christmas, the sales pitches arrive well before the actual event. Television, radio, newspapers, piles of merchandise in stores you visit, and blogs all announce: Back to School! For some it’s kindergarten, for others, the very first day of college. School is starting soon. And that may mean losing your religion. And no, not the R.E.M. song. Nor, indeed, most of the definitions of the phrase out there—losing your temper, giving up civility, or flying off the handle, for example—though some people do see loss of religion and loss of morality or civility as entangled.
What do I mean? I mean losing your religion in a not-so-subtle way. I mean secularizing; closer to what the founders of losingmyreligion.com mean than, say, R.E.M. (what was Michael Stipe really singing about anyway?) And, this sort of fear of lost faith may be the reason that a recent study from the University of Michigan has elicited such attention across various news media. Can your choice of college major mean... losing your religion?
For many of those heading off to college, choosing a major is a critical step along the way to graduation. At some point, “undecided” is not enough; decisions are called for, choices, declaration of major forms. This whole process is sometimes thought of as peculiar to higher education in the United States, which is unlike other systems where college or university students know their area of specialization well before heading off to university. For US students, declaring a major is a ritual almost as recognizably undergraduate as, say joining a fraternity, supporting sports teams or, these days, engaging in community service even when not forced to do so by the legal system. Indeed, there are books on choosing your major, Web sites filled with advice, and even quizzes to take online to figure out what major would be best for you.
Postmodernism as Gateway Drug to Atheism
And, now, there has been an explosion of reporting on choice of college major—and religiosity—in the higher education press and the blogosphere. Both the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Education reported on the ways this ritualized choice may (or may not) relate to losing one’s religion. In an article entitled “Connecting College Majors and Religion,” Becky Supiano of the Chronicle drew on a paper entitled “Empirics on the Origins of Preferences: The Case of College Major and Religiosity,” published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Paper authors Miles Kimball, Colter M. Mitchell, Arland D. Thornton, and Linda C. Young-Demarco (all of the University of Michigan) investigated both the impact of major on religiosity and vice versa: the impact of religiosity on major. When Inside Higher Education took up the topic, their writers (or at least their headline writers) made the rhetorical leap from “religiosity” to “God.”
Beyond the higher education press, the blogosphere erupted with responses ranging from simple re-postings to a response entitled “atheism is freedom.” Not to be left out, the more traditional news media in the United States and beyond took up the topic as well; from Texas to India and back to New Hampshire, the notion that college major and religiosity are linked seemed to require attention. A lot of attention.
Of course, all this probably resulted from the well-executed press release issued by the University of Michigan, where the co-authors work. Here’s how the press release opened:
College students who major in the social sciences and humanities are likely to become less religious, while those majoring in education are likely to become more religious.
But students majoring in biology and physical sciences remain just about as religious as they were when they started college.
Of course, the article itself is not really about a causal link between either religiosity and choice of major or the impact of college major on religiosity. The article is about a set of correlations, developed through a study of 26,200 people and, as one odd assumption, the choice of business as a “culturally neutral” major. Despite this, some fearmongering headlines announced, for example, that the humanities lead to loss of religion.
In articulating the reasons for the decline of religiosity among various majors, the authors identify several culprits: science, “developmentalism” (by which they mean a belief in progress), and postmodernism (by which they mean a belief that everything is relative). As quoted in the press release, Miles Kimball says:
Our results suggest that it is Postmodernism, not science, that is the bête noir of religiosity. One reason may be that the key ideas of Postmodernism are newer than the key scientific ideas that challenge religion. For example, religions have had 150 years to develop resistance or tolerance for the late-19th century idea of Evolution, but much less time to develop resistance or tolerance for the key ideas of Postmodernism, which gained great strength over the course of the 20th century.
Funded by the John Templeton Foundation, this work stands over against, for example, the notion that college is good for faith (see here) or points to the central importance of the religious engagement of American undergraduates (see a study funded in part by Teagle). Such efforts to examine the relation of particular disciplines to religiosity also link, perhaps, to various studies of faculty and faith which examine both correlations and possible causal relations (see here or here).
Religious Leaders of the Future?
Why do we care? Depending, of course, on your stance, religion can be seen as a potential savior of American society (not to mention individuals). In this regard, the Heritage Foundation has been adamant that religion is of critical importance to sustaining social stability. Others note that the spiritual lives of American undergraduates are both important to them (perhaps increasingly so), and nurturing that spirituality critical to higher education’s public responsibility. (See AACU 2005 report here.) UCLA’s HERI Institute has reported, too, that there is a positive relationship between students’ spirituality and achievement. Still others, including those who commented on a recent description of this study at the Friendly Atheist site think all this important because, hey, atheism is a good thing and college majors may be a way to increase atheist demographics.
For all of these folks, whether you are a helicopter parent or not, a college student about to declare a major or not, it matters how education and religion are related—it matters for our future. Today’s undergraduates are, almost every higher education institution claims, tomorrow’s leaders. As UCLA’s HERI has noted, political engagement among first-year college students has hit a 40-year high. So: do we, or do we not, want religious leaders? If so, what sort of religious leaders? Turns out, college major (may) matter.
Remember that... because it’s Back to School!
Tags: atheism, college, postmodernism, religion
So they chose business as the "culturally neutral major"? That is odd! Haven't we determined that capitalism (as it exists currently) is pretty dichotomous to religious values? I wonder what the correlations look like if they renormalize the data assuming a degree in English or chemistry is the culturally neutral major.
The religion/politics link probably has more to do with college students losing their religion. This is not due so much to politics as it is to conservative politics. College students probably spend less time than the average American listening to Rush Limbaugh, and his people are strong in their belief system. College students are becoming more exposed to the world, and more likely to see the cracks that appeared in America society during the Bush years.
Is it a bad thing that humans no longer believe the earth is flat? Is it a bad thing that humans no longer believe the sun is a thinking being?
The only difference between an accepted myth and a current religion, is that the current gods believed in have yet to face the sunlight of reason that killed the old ones and relegated them to rightfully being called myth.
Education is the sunlight that took us out of the dark ages. Education is why we know now that the earth rotates around the sun. Fear is what keeps humanity clinging to myth.
Here is one of the most dangerous ideas for humanity: that simply because we are smart/educated we stand in the light rather than in darkness. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this is true. Some of the greatest evils of the world have been perpetrated by those who were quite brilliant. Faith or no faith we stand on very shaky ground when we believe we, as opposed to the other are superior simply because we are "in the know."
Reply to anonymous who posted on August 17, 2009 at 2:58 PM
I wonder if this writer realizes what he (I realize this writer may be female; I'll use the male pronouns as a convention) has said. Sure, it's always worth keeping in mind that we risk becoming arrogant because of our knowledge, that we might overlook our ignorance because we are so impressed with what we understand. As the poster says: brilliant people are not immune to "committing evil", though I wonder just who this person has in mind, and, further, what his measure of "brilliance" really is. But this assertion gets pushed into an absurdity when arrogance is regarded as on the sort of "shaky ground" he infers. The implication is that there's something better than trusting and honoring one's knowledge and understanding. I wonder what that might be...? Seems this writing is a shill for belief, for believing, as if, somehow -- need I say "magically"? -- this alternative is on less "shaky ground" than trusting and extrapolating one's knowledge and understanding. Merely to suppose these alternatives are equivalent shows just how difficult it is for believers to appreciate the point of view of those who eschew belief.
Not necessarily true. Individual arrogance is indeed "shaky ground." To use your phrase, "trusting and extrapolating" from my own personal knowledge and understanding is certainly not as good as "trusting and extrapolating" from the sum total of knowledge and understanding from human history. So in that sense, there is absolutely something "better," which need not be "a shill for belief."
Frankly, the point is very simply: there is no evidence that any one thing, be it "knowledge" or "faith" or anything else is essentially more prone to make us good people. What exactly does make us people, who love creation and care about one another is a question of profound importance but there is not one shred of evidence that "knowledge" is the key. I realize that this might shatter the world view of many people. But the belief that one hold the secrets of the world either because of relationship with a God or by their own amazing brilliance is dangerous indeed to all humanity.
Sin is what is dangerous to all humanity, my friend, not God. God is the only true escape from sin because God afterall, is love. Anyone who's afraid that love will hurt the world needs to get his or her head checked. Most of the world right now definitely does need a head check AND God--in crazy doses.
peace.
Wonderful!
Atheism is just a lack of belief in god. Please do not use the "Judgmental language" fallacy to create a "Thought-terminating cliché". I will not continue to dissect your argument but there are plenty more holes.
Is it to much to ask that a "Professor of Religious Studies" understand basic rhetoric and logic? This has been around since the early Greek philosophers.
But what is even worse, is you miss the point entirely. It is not a major that changes minds, it is thought. And once you learn to think, certain conclusions are inevitable.
1 + 1 = 2 is true.
Therefore 1 + 2 = 3 is true.
Saying "I have a book that says it's true" does not prove anything other than you have a book. And in the case of the bible, a profound lack of its understanding.
What argument do you suppose you're dissecting? Honestly, in all seriousness, did you actually read the article?
Henking reports on a study in which the authors (correctly or incorrectly) draw some conclusions, explains how the traditional and modern (web) media responded with many different opinions, and finally makes one point, which is that, regardless of your own opinion, the results of the study could turn out to be important. I see absolutely no "argument" which uses "judgemental language" or a "thought-terminating cliche" that needs "dissecting." In fact, it is not Henking at all who makes the leap from "religiosity" to "God," nor is it actually she who draws the conclusion that "certain majors turn students into godless nihilists." She's commenting, rather facetiously, on the study and the attention it has garnered.
I'd recommend that 1) you read the article instead of being content to merely read the title, and 2) you lighten up already. Do you get this defensive when a news anchor tells you there was a record-breaking heat wave last week? Do you argue that, as the term "heat wave" is obviously a sly and disingenuous rhetorical tool, the reporter is trying to sham us all by fooling us into thinking it's hot outside?
I am not a nihilist and I am disgusted at being called one. I might have a point as the term has been removed from elsewhere on the page. I am also not a hedonist, an anarchist, or a terrorist. Look in a thesaurus, you will find all that and more.
Also, to talk about the weather, you seek to discredit by making me seem argumentative. That has a name as well but you might use the fact I know it to claim that I am a liberal know-it-all.
I thought I wrote a nice response, but here is a not nice response.
Please don't insult me, comparing me to a nihilist is like me calling Christians cannibals, because they take communion or arsonists because of they burned Rome. Not only is it untrue, it is plain rude, and worst of all mean. Especially for those who claim to follow Jesus' compassion.
Why accuse someone of not understanding "basic rhetoric and logic" when all they are attempting to do is invent interesting but related terms to make an article more readable or catchy? I doubt Henking is trying to make an "argument" that all atheists are godless nihilists (although I'm sure some are, but not all), and her "poor" choice of synonyms hardly necessitates a lesson in arithmetic. I certainly don't think anyone meant any harm by using the terms - only once - interchangeably.
You're still equating godless with nihilists.
And you are right, I was being an ass. But I am well, hurt.
I've taken it on the chin quite a bit from people who turn the other cheek. So please forgive me; I just couldn't stay silent one more time.
Actually, I am in the wrong here. I was wrong, and I'm sorry. I'm taking anger from one place and dropping it here. And I had no right to insult her or you.
Again, sorry.
Nor did I intend to equate atheism with nihilism, so I apologize as well (nihilists are those skinny guys in The Big Lebowski, right? wink wink). It took your response for me to figure out what you were actually saying, and as I said, I'm sure Henking didn't intend to insult anyone. I'm sorry that those who should "turn the other cheek" don't seem to - the "religious" are notorious for being hypocrites, it would seem (myself often included, I'm afraid!). Just look at the Pharisees.
I too, take exception to the nasty line at the top of the article that appears to equate atheism to nihilism. It's completely wrong and insulting.
I was also a little intrigued at the statement that "the Heritage Foundation has been adamant that religion is of critical importance to sustaining social stability."
I wonder how the HF would respond to the observation that very unreligious Denmark has a very stable society? By all accounts it's a great place to live.
But in the end, the question is a good one: do we or do we not want religious leaders? I for one want leaders who can demonstrate that they will act at all times in accordance with clear-thinking rationality.
Hi!
You mentioned that the "blogosphere erupted with responses ranging from simple re-postings to a response entitled “atheism is freedom.”"
My response was actually titled, "College attendance and religiosity". My blog name is "atheism is freedom". My response to the article headlines was to obtain the journal article and analyze it for myself. The blog post is my analysis that attempted to cut through the headlines to illustrate some of the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
www.ziztur.com
Thanks for responding to my reflections everyone. I have to admit, I think the opening quotation is not actually my prose, but the editorial organization putting a catchy opening, though I may be wrong. In any case, I do not mean to equate nihilism and atheism, nor do I actually think atheism is a bad thing. Indeed, I see myself as utterly and completely secular and am not a theist. Having said that, what interests me a lot is that this one study, a correlational one at that, has received so much press. Why do you think that is?
It matters to religion because they understand religion is in a war for its survival. It doesn't matter so much to non-religion because they don't really care one way or the other, but the press is always interested in any war because coverage can mean profits.
I am currently taking an online doctorate degree and I know when I did my masters degree on campus, colleges tolerated students of all faiths including atheism. Just going to college does not turn you to be an atheist, but it opens your horizon.
well technically God is not true i tell you why 1st he is evil (if i believe i him). 2nd if he loved use all equally then why did abraham take a test and not anybody else and moses he was talking to a flaming bush and jesus the only one that could do all sorts of mericals.
Okay, so humanities and social related majors see the light. They usually don't gravitate to political careers anyway. Today's fundies seem all about supporting the currently corrupt capitalism, so business majors, though not mentioned, might embrace a religious facade.
Religious leaders of the future? They can't be any worse than the Duvalls, Ensigns, Sanfords, Haggards, Robertsons, Hagees, Falwells, Parsleys, Barnes, Roberts, Aldridges, and Andersen's of today. With such examples, is it any wonder that religion is being dismissed?
Good point, dbum. A few months ago I graduated from a real "liberal nest" :) It did not make me an atheist. My faith is just as strong.
It's the modern commercial church culture of fake religiosity, churches turning to be business enterprises whose primary goal is to entice The Customer, people-and-world-friendly and Jesus-hating are to blame.
All the hypocrisy and pretentiousness, sanctimonious piousness of religionists, that is what turned me away from fundamentalist Christianity, and into a very Progressive Christian.
They don’t need colleges - they are doing their own job of destruction of Christianity quite well!
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.