Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Explain that.

Yes, the college educated people create 2-parent homes, but they also have less religious belief. 
Coincidence?

yes, Coincidence

This ties into another problem in our modern society:

As I see it, technology is increasingly eliminating (or reducing) the number of middle class jobs.

As I understand it, @847badgerfan is a Civil Engineer and I know enough about that to at least use it as an example so for my example I'll use accounting (my profession) and Civil Engineering:

50+ years ago a Civil Engineers office would have needed three classes of employees to function:

• Upper class, college educated: The actual Engineers like Badge.
• Middle class, generally HS or maybe some technical education beyond HS: Basically draftsman.
• Lower class, HS or less: Janitors to empty trash and scrub toilets.

It was similar in an accounting office half a Century ago:

• Upper class, college educated: The actual accountants like me.
• Middle class, generally HS or maybe some beyond HS: Bookkeepers.
• Lower class, HS or less: Janitors to empty trash and scrub toilets.

In today's offices we still need #1 and #3. There are still Engineers/Accountants and we still need Janitors but the drafting and number crunching people have mostly been replaced by CAD/Excel.

This, IMHO, is a major problem for society because the middle class was a bridge. They had shared concerns with both the upper and the lower classes. As they become less and less prevalent there is an ever-widening gap between the Engineers/Accountants and their Janitors.

Honestly, we do have people with tech education working for us. They are CAD operators and survey technicians. Most of the latter work outside, collecting data or pounding stakes in the ground for construction. They are highly compensated.

We have a cleaning service every Saturday. If your personal trash is full before that, you take it to the dumpster outside.

Trucks are inspected randomly for cleanliness.

We're kinda old school.

It isn't so much a micro issue of individual religiosity, it is a macro/cultural issue. Our culture used to insist, largely for religious reasons, that premarital sex was wrong. Now our culture is MUCH less religious and no longer makes that assertion.

Are you sure that it has much of anything to do with religiosity? 

Or could it be MUCH more due to the pill and the women's lib movement?

Roundabout the 1960s, we started telling women they have agency and they should be in control of their own decisions. That desiring sex was actually natural and something they shouldn't be ashamed of. And that about that time, we gave them a very easy and reliable contraceptive that gave them the OPTION to have sex w/o having kids.  

I think it's far more likely that those two things were dominant factors, and a reduction in religiosity is a smaller factor. 

And I'm not demeaning anyone.  I'm demeaning an absurd idea.  Myths are simply past religions.  At some point, the masses won't require them. 

If you think the masses don't require myths, you have a higher opinion of humanity than I do. But the way I have heard you deride the masses, I actually don't think you have a very high opinion of them, so I'll dig in. 

People, especially "the masses", often don't have the time or inclination to think for themselves. They have agency to decide plenty of things in their life. Whether/where to go to college. What job they want to do. Who they want to marry. But when it comes to the BIG questions, very few people in this world are truly philosophical and can handle the idea that "it's all made up bullshit and I have to face a world that is almost entirely myth-based."

So they NEED myths. They CRAVE it. The myths underpinning society are the only reason we have society. 

Now, you may say that religion are old-school myths, out of date, and not based on objective reality (i.e. existence of the invisible man in the sky). Upon that, I agree. However, they were for a very long time, VERY effective at giving people a stable and clear idea of how to act in the world (morals/ethics), an authority structure to follow (clergy), and an unfalsifiable reward/punishment system built in to enforce compliance (heaven/hell). 

But if you eliminate religion, you have NOT eliminated the masses' need for myths. The myths exist, to give people who don't have the time, capability, or inclination to think philosophically, a coherent structure in which to understand the world and their place in it.

So in the absence of religion, you need new myths to replace it. You have a vacuum that needs filling. And I don't think we, as described as "American society in general", have done a very good job of that. 

I've talked about myths, but I think there's something that we see in sports that is driven by a similar human need--everything has to be a narrative. 

I was struck watching one of the preseason games where a player--the second of the game--had to be put on a stretcher and carted off the field. And the commentator (who I think was a former player) was talking about when that sort of thing happened, the first play after such a terrible injury is weird. But by the second play... You're just playing football. 

I think we often talk about things in sports because we need a narrative to explain something. I.e. let's say OSU finishes the year with PSU, Northwestern, and Michigan. They're 10-0 after the PSU game, and just have to get through Northwestern to play The Game for to win the division, got to the CCG, and get into the playoff. 

And then they lose to Northwestern. And we can't explain it. They're not SUPPOSED to lose to Northwestern. So we claim "they got caught looking ahead". 

But... Did they really? I think much like the example of the on-field injury, once you get into those pads and you get onto the field, you're not thinking about next week's game. You're thinking about the play that's called, performing your job, and beating the guy across from you. There's no such thing as "looking ahead".

Why do I say this? Because OSU probably has a win probability of 0.95 over Northwestern, but we never need a narrative for the 19 times out of 20 that OSU wins. But when OSU loses, we can't just accept that there's a probability function and Northwestern is going to win some. Because they're not supposed to. OSU is supposed to win. So we need to create a narrative as to "why". 

Humans tell stories. We tell stories as ways to shield ourselves from the randomness of life. It's a coping mechanism. Some of those are mere narratives to explain an unexpected outcome. Others grow to become the myths that allow us to create a society. But it's all just telling stories that help us make sense of a random world. 

But it's all just telling stories that help us make sense of a random world.

This is the core of it.  Back in the day, folks wanted things like storms and lightning and the stars and planets explained to them.  Someone got creative.  And the myths didn't help us make sense in reality, but they fooled us into thinking they did.

So the most-educated of us are the least religious.  And you think it's a coincidence? 
I bet religious rates dropping off a cliff with the advent and spread of the internet is a coincidence, too?

I think something dropped off a cliff would have a much sharper change in direction.  This to me looks like a downward slow drift, really starting around 2012.