OkCupid, while not the most praiseworthy place to draw data from, has some correlating data that some might find surprising (or not?). What causes this discrepancy? I would venture to guess that since people who read more often are better readers and writers, those people would have read more about religion, life, culture, science, etc. and have a ‘weaker version’ of their faith — that would also explain the discrepancy between the stronger non-believers and their abilities. This would especially make sense if one assumes that the atheist position is closer to the truth, and that somehow from reading and writing, humans get closer to the truth. Even in education, which involves higher amounts of reading and writing “those with graduate degrees were the least likely to believe in the afterlife or the Bible as the word of God” (http://sda.berkeley.edu:8080/quicktables/quicksetoptions.do?reportKey=gss04%3A1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence). I want to avoid being Glenn-Beckean and note again emphatically that OKCupid is not necessarily representative of all populations and that the data is correlative, though it is deserving of explanation. Perhaps this also lends credibility to the notion of vague Buddhism not being that close to other religions?
- Blog
- About
- Interviews
- Broadcasts
- Contributors
- Copyleft
- Contact
- Subscribe to Podcast
- Subscribe via iTunes
