Ah right! well I can't argue with Prof Dawkins, I agree it is in least part, I think least is the operative word here, small, very small part of the explanation.
I think, personally, that the modes of thought required to excel in factual regurgitation (which is, historically, the essence of formal education) and the modes of thought required to put faith in the unevidenced have very little cross-over.
Economics is also a part of the explanation, chasing the dollar sign, we all do it.
Economic situation presses strongly on educational achievement and religiosity, and although statisticians try to mitigate that influence when making their determinations, statistics tends to be subjective.
Education, does it make you smart? make you intelligent, does educated mean intelligent?
That's one that's been raised repeatedly, with this issue and in other places. Intelligence is a vaguely defined term, at best, and incredibly difficult to measure. When the correlation is reported, therefore, it's specifically formal educational achievement - some people will see that as indicative of intelligence, or at least one form of intelligence, that's why I tried to qualify the idea with 'at least by one measure'.
I have to go winging all the way back to Prof Dawkin's, a very highly educated man, but intelligent, is a sign of intelligence, the ability to see both sides of the argument, the ability to walk a mile in another man's shoes?
I'm pretty sure that, in the main, Professor Dawkins can see both sides of the argument, but that's because one of the sides doesn't really have an argument - they don't think in terms of 'arguments' and 'evidence', that's why they take things on faith. The likes of William Lane Craig and the deep-thinking theologians aren't typical of people of faith, they're in the crossover group capable of thinking both ways. As to which of those ways demonstrates 'intelligence' - who knows.
Regurgitating facts could be considered intelligence, or it could be redundant now that we have google. Seeing things from another point of view is considered by some to be part of 'emotional intelligence', but how intelligent is it to be able to understand the wrong answer - and some of them will be wrong. It's more important to understand that the people who have the 'wrong' answer aren't necessarily bad people because of that.
And walking that mile, that's not any sort of intelligence at all, that's empathy, compassion and plain old human decency - unfortunately, given that you can't measure it, and can't charge for it, it doesn't seem to get a let of attention from anyone these days.
I don't think we become less religious as we become more educated, education does lift you from one cycle into another, how we use that education, we replace one kind of religion for another, jumping out of aeroplanes with a bit of clothe strapped to your back, climbing mountains, shooting guns, football 
sport in general, anything that gives us a high, drugs, drink, this all comes from having a better economy.
Well, the evidence is against you - the more educated we become the less religious we become, in general. Which precedes the other, which causes the other, whether they're both caused by something else, that's a different issue.
If you want to 'redefine' religion as seeking the excesses of human experience fine, but I suspect most believers wouldn't recognise that any more than most non-believers would. Seeking some sort of 'fulfilment', that's something we all do, but I think religion is one particular way of doing it, not the whole of it.
O.
Education is a very small part of why we turn our backs on God.
Gonnagle.
[/quote]
