It depends on the question. The OP can be read in two different ways.
Is someone who believes in evangelicalism, among many other things, ignorant?
Is believing in evangelicalism ignorant?
The answer to the first is “no,” and to the second is “yes.”
Here is my reasoning:
I’ve known a few smart people who say they don’t rely on science, but actually do and don’t want to admit it. The funny thing about religion is that it can be used to justify anything, even scientific thought. What I usually see smart religious people do is rely on principles that have sound scientific backing, but they’ll say they’re relying on their faith.
If you think of all the successful religious scientists, they became successful because they applied science, not religion. I’m pretty sure that there is not one instant of someone ignoring science and achieving success.
Other times, people will rely on their intuition and think that they’re ignoring science. But intuition is based judgments your subconscious makes from past experiences. If someone tries a lot of new things, and therefore has lots of valuable experience, their intuition can be very accurate.
Believing in something and ignoring contrary evidence is the definition of ignorance. Any part of evangelicalism that doesn’t do this is based on scientific thought, and not faith.
A few more relevant citations, this time mostly limited to the US. To the question of how religiosity interacts with intelligence (as proxied, at least, by education), the answer is “it depends”. But it seems undoubtable that those within the most conservative religions experience worse outcomes, and that women are the hardest hit.
Nyborg, Helmuth (2009). The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent Americans Intelligence, 37, 81-93. This is a juicy one: using the NLSY79, white “[a]theists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions”. These results are generally statistically significant at any conventional level. The methodology on this one’s kind of instructive, it’s worth a look.
Reeve, Charlie L (2009). Expanding the g-nexus: Further evidence regarding the relations among national IQ, religiosity and national health outcomes. Intelligence, 37, 495-505. Cross-national study, trying to separate effects of IQ vs. effects of religious belief. The author concludes that religious belief has a strong negative effect on “national health” (infant mortality rate, life exptancy, etc.) but that this can be mitigated by high average IQ.
Beyerlein, Kraig (2004). Specifying the Impact of Conservative Protestantism on Educational Attainment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43.4, 505-518. Fundamentalists and pentacostals have much lower educational attainment than other groups, but evangelicals are more likely to have a college education than the nonreligious.
Regnerus, Mark D (2003). Religion and Positive Adolescent Outcomes: A Review of Research and Theory. Review of Religious Research, 44.4, 394-413. Lit review. The consensus seems to be in favor of “moest positive influences of religious involvement” in adolescent risky behavior – but really only for adolescents, and not for positive outcomes generally (e.g. education).
Sherkat, Darren E. and Alfred Darnell (1999). The Effect of Parents’ Fundamentalism on Children’s Educational Attainment: Examining Differences by Gender and Children’s Fundamentalism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38.1, 23-35. Fundamentalist parents are found strongly to hinder the educational attainment of their non-fundamentalist female children; such parents are, however, more supportive of the educational pursuits of their fundamentalist male children than non-fundamentalist parents.
Keysar, Ariela and Barry A. Kosmin (1995). The Impact of Religious Identification on Differences in Educational Attainment among American Women in 1990. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34.1, 49-62. Stratified by age-range. For young women (18-24), pentacostal women were about half as likely as nonreligious women to obtain higher education; baptists were only a bit better; but other mainstream religions had a positive effect on educational attainment for young women. For slightly older women (25-44), on the other hand, and except for those within very liberal religions (e.g. Judaism, Eastern religions), religiosity had a uniformly negative impact on educational attainment relative to nonreligious women.
On the other hand …
Lehrer, Evelyn (2004). Religiosity as a Determinant of Educational Attainment: The Case of Conservative Protestant Women in the United States. Review of the Economics of the Household, 2, 203-219. Among protestant women, educational attainment was higher (by about 3/5 of a year of schooling) for the highly religious than for those with lower religiosity.
I’m not sure I understand your reasoning; you seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between science and faith. I’ve never heard of someone who relies on science and doesn’t want to admit it. Many Evangelicals (and other believers) rely on science all the time.
I suppose if you could come up with a hypothetical irresolvable conflict between science and Evangelicalism, and forced the believer to choose, it might might show ignorance if they rejected the science. But I’m not aware of such an irresolvable conflict.
A unique miraculous event like the Resurrection is scientifically unfalsifiable. I’m sure we can name plenty of successful scientists who are rigorous in their application of Scientific Method yet accept the Resurrection. Believers acknowledge that such events violate the laws of science, that’s why they’re called miracles.
No, it isn’t. To prove that someone was not resurrected, for example, you can produce the body.
“But we can’t do that now!” one might say. “He lived two thousand years ago!” Maybe so, but that’s why ancient events typically fall under the category of history, not science. Science is by no means the only path to knowledge, even though some insist otherwise.
History itself proceeds through observation and logical reasoning. We observe evidence of events in the past (chronicles, artifacts, and other lingering traces). We construct hypotheses to explain the existence of this evidence. And our hypotheses are confirmed by observing further evidence that agrees with them.
For example, I believe that someone named George Washington lived several centuries ago and served as president of the United States because that hypothesis correlates with numerous evidentiary traces. The process of acquiring historical knowledge rests upon the same epistemological foundation as science.
The acquisition of historical knowledge is a tangent discussion though; my point is that there is not necessarily any conflict between established science and an Evangelical worldview.
Now, Evangelicals may be more likely to hold on to beliefs that contradict established science (like creationism as a common example) but belief in Creationism is not a necessary element of Evangelicalism itself. If the question were, “Are Creationists ignorant about science?” the answer is absolutely yes.
A few months ago I started a thread mentioning the book God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World. The authors are both writers on religion and culture for the Economist. They look at global religious trends, but especially at fast-growing evangelical and pentecostal movements in South Korea, China, and Latin America. They mention that many of these movements find their most success gaining converts among the well-educated middle class in those countries. Admittedly they don’t have studies, but mainly personal visits and observations, but it is food for thought. The point is that religion is a huge topic. In some places at some times there may be less religious fervor among the well-educated, but at other places and times more.
As The Hamster King succinctly points out, science is merely the systematic application of empirical observation and logical reasoning.
What views are unique to Evangelicals that are consistent with empirical observation and logical reasoning?
To me, it seems that they have none. You claim that unfalsifiable claims are consistent with science, but I see them as claims that have no scientific value. Yes, they don’t disprove anything, which you might think makes them consistent with science. But they don’t prove anything either. Which is why I think they have no value to science, and why I consider them a form of ignorance.
Yes, but that doesn’t make it science. That’s why history is generally classified under the humanities rather than the sciences. The application of observation and logic is NOT sufficient to render something scientific.
No, I haven’t. I have said that the question “Did this person rise from the dead” is a matter of historical inquiry, rather than a scientific issue. In other words, we gauge the plausibility of such a claim using historical methods. I said nothing about whether such a claim is true or even historically plausible.
So your claim is incorrect. I was merely stating which field of study would be used to evaluate such a claim. This is entirely different from determining whether such a claim is historically accurate or not.
I find it interesting that that article goes on to say “identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge.” This would seem to contradict either Lakai’s claim that scientific method is simply observation and logic, or The Hamster King’s claim that observation and logic are the only method of obtaining knowledge.
That’s not a definition, Lakai. The Wikipedia articles states that scientific inquiry must be based on those principles. It does not state that these principles alone are sufficient to declare something to be scientific. For example, the scientific method requires the use of hypothesis formulation and experimentation under controlled circumstances. This goes far beyond merely stating that observation and logic are sufficient to define science.
Thudlow Boink has also pointed out that your own link disproves your claim. It specifically states that there are other methods of obtaining knowledge. That is precisely why schools typically draw a distinction between the sciences and the humanities – because there IS a meaningful difference between the two.