Fundie Engineers - Creationists and Islamists

[lpetrich]

There's an interesting article in Slate on Why do so many terrorists have engineering degrees? - By Benjamin Popper - Slate Magazine

A paper (PDF) released this summer by two sociologists, Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog, adds empirical evidence to this observation. The pair looked at more than 400 radical Islamic terrorists from more than 30 nations in the Middle East and Africa born mostly between the 1950s and 1970s. Earlier studies had shown that terrorists tend to be wealthier and better-educated than their countrymen, but Gambetta and Hertog found that engineers, in particular, were three to four times more likely to become violent terrorists than their peers in finance, medicine or the sciences. The next most radicalizing graduate degree, in a distant second, was Islamic Studies.

The two main reasons:

* Difficulty of finding engineering jobs in their homelands. The main exception is Saudi Arabia, which has been able to create many more such jobs than most other Islamic nations have.

* Engineers have a mentality more suited to becoming Islamist terrorists than most other professionals. Some studies on US professors show that engineers are more likely to describe themselves as conservative or religious than professors in any other field.

Gambetta and Hertog write about a particular mind-set among engineers that disdains ambiguity and compromise. They might be more passionate about bringing order to their society and see the rigid, religious law put forward in radical Islam as the best way of achieving those goals. In online postings, Abdulmutallab expressed concern over the conflict between his secular lifestyle and more extreme religious views. "How should one put the balance right?" he wrote.

Steve Bruce has noted something similar about engineers in his book God is Dead: Secularism in the West; that likely also explains the creationist-engineer phenomenon. It is sometimes called the  Salem hypothesis, after it being noticed by a certain Bruce Salem. It's remarkably common for some creationist's scientific credentials to turn out to be an engineering degree.

That Wikipedia article quoted Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog:

Whether American, Canadian or Islamic, and whether due to selection or field socialisation, a disproportionate share of engineers seems to have a mindset that inclines them to entertain the quintessential right-wing features of “monism” – ‘why argue when there is one best solution’ – and of "simplism” – ‘if only people were rational, remedies would be simple’.

Physics crackpots are also likely to be engineers: Pathological Physics: Tales from "The Box" - YouTube and its slides: Pathological physics

 

[lpetrich]

Steve Bruce repeats this poll of US scientists in 1969.

Scientific	Regularly	Never	Religious	No
Field	Attend	Attend	Conservative	Religion
Mathematics/statistics	47	35	40	27
Physical sciences	43	38	34	27
Life sciences	42	36	36	29
Social sciences	31	48	19	36
Economics	38	42	26	30
Political science	32	43	18	30
Sociology	38	43	16	36
Psychology	20	62	12	48
Anthropology	15	67	11	57

Note that the most religious and the most conservative of the scientists are those in the natural sciences and especially in mathematics. By comparison, the least religious ones were in the social sciences, with the most religious ones of those being the most natural-science-like ones, like economics.

It seems to me that that those in the social sciences are the ones most likely to run into the idea of the religion business being a human invention.

This phenomenon was commented on by Dr. Mahzarin Banaji in the Beyond Belief conference; she came to similar conclusions.

Steve Bruce quoted the Larson and Witham's study of the religiosity of the more eminent scientists, Leading scientists still reject God. That study also found the greatest amounts of belief among mathematicians. By comparison, biological scientists had the least, with physical scientists having a bit more.


The rest of that chapter is most interesting, with Steve Bruce having a bit of insight into the creationist-engineer phenomenon. He makes a distinction between "mundane" science and "advanced" science, which is roughly a distinction between science that uses settled knowledge and exploratory science. The former is what's in applied-science fields like engineering and medicine, fields which tend to have the more religious and more fundie scientists.

He suggests that there are similarities in approach between "mundane" science and fundie religion, that both of them work from what is presumed to be some well-established source of truth. In effect, there is not much difference between using some engineering handbook and using some sacred book in fundie fashion, so there is not as much cognitive dissonance as one might expect.

Of course, when one takes a broader perspective, that is completely absurd. The provenance of each type of document and the methodologies involved in their construction is completely different, as are the reliabilities of each type of document. But that is not apparent to the fundie, who may concoct elaborate arguments to the effect that their favorite sacred book is as reliable as an engineering handbook.


Steve Bruce also illustrates the crudity of fundie epistemology by noting that in one sermon, Billy Graham had asked his audience to read the Gospel of John 5 times and then ask for salvation. All that was necessary was to read it, with no effort to understand it being necessary.


As to Islam itself, I've learned of an interesting curiosity regarding the only Muslim scientist ever to win a Nobel Prize:  Abdus Salam of Pakistan. He won it in physics in 1979, along with Steven Weinberg, who has gone public with his atheism, and Sheldon Glashow, who has not stated anything publicly one way or the other. And the two had won it for some science that is anything but mundane and that was highly exploratory -- working out electroweak unification, the highly-successful theory that the electromagnetic and the weak nuclear interactions are parts of one bigger interaction.

However, AS was an Ahmadi / Ahmedi Muslim, a follower of a sect that many Muslims consider heretical. It features a doctrine of progressive revelation, and that may have made it easier for AS to get into exploratory science.

But in his homeland, Ahmadis are pursued by a "Movement for the Finality of the Prophet", which considers them evil heretics for believing that Mohammed is not the absolute last prophet. And AS himself is barely recognized in the land of his birth, even though he would make a good national hero.

And it may be hard to believe that there is anything really new or important to be learned if one believes that all the Really Important Stuff was revealed long ago and that no newer revelations can possibly happen.

In that Beyond Belief conference, astrophysicist Neil LeGrasse Tyson pointed out how our northern and equatorial constellations have Greek names and how the brighter stars in those constellations have medieval Arabic names. He noted that the Islamic world was very learned in the Middle Ages until about 1100 CE, when it fell back into rigid fundamentalism. The eminent theologian Al Ghazzali claimed that the study of philosophy was dangerous, because it would lead people to consider heretical thoughts.

 

[lpetrich]

From an earlier review of Steve Bruce's God is Dead:

He first points out that science is only one influence contributing to the secularization of Western society -- he points to lots of others, like the rise of what he calls "bureaucratic rationality".

But back to the main subject, he suggests going beyond the familiar conflicts between them to look at the mentalities behind them.

In general, scientists tend to be less religious than the general public, especially the more eminent ones. When they prefer some religion, they tend to prefer the non-fundie sorts. But the "harder" sort of sciences tend to have more religiosity than the "softer" sorts; natural scientists tend to be more religious than social scientists, and among social scientists, the natural-scientist-like ones like economists tend to be more religious than (say) anthropologists, who scored very low.

He suggests that there is a similar sort of mentality and methodology shared by "hard" scientists and many of the more conservative religionists like Xtian and Muslim fundies -- a belief that the truth is out there to be discovered, a taste for precision, especially numerical precision, and so forth. Thus, someone who tries to work out the precise date of the end of the world has something in common with someone who tries to work out the precise dates of the next eclipses.

This may explain why so many creationists are engineers -- they are doing applied "hard" science. And this may explain why so many students from Islamic countries go into the natural sciences and engineering.

Admittedly, one does have to do a bit of tiptoeing here and there to avoid running into doctrinally troublesome parts of science, but one can often get away with doing so in many specialties of science. Thus, one can become a doctor while avoiding thinking about evolution -- even though the idea of evolution is essential for understanding the use of animal models for human functions and diseases, and for understanding why disease organisms develop resistance to antibiotics.

Also, SB proposes a distinction between "advanced science" and "mundane science", with the latter being where much of the religiosity is concentrated, like all those creationist engineers.

Finally, the irreligion of anthropologists is interesting, and something that SB barely comments on -- one might expect these people to say that "religion is a universal human craving; therefore, I must try to make myself believe in a religion."

-

From an earlier discussion of the creationist-engineer phenomenon:

However, in his discussion of science and religion, SB makes some comments that are very relevant to the creationism question, and in particular, to the abundance of creationist engineers.

He suggests that we go beyond specific doctrines and look for similarities in thought processes. And he finds that there are some similarities between the "hard" sciences and the more conservative and fundie sorts of religion. Those sects have their own brand of rigorous rationalism, however perverted it may seem to outsiders.

This manifests itself in a taste for precision, especially numerical precision. Thus, predicting when the next eclipses will happen is much like predicting when Jesus Christ will make his Second Coming.

Steve Bruce also distinguishes between "advanced science", which is exploratory, and "mundane science", which is mainly the application of established paradigms. And engineering is clearly "mundane science". The latter one is more like conservative/fundie religion than the former; the paradigms used may almost be called the sacred books of a field.

Also, in engineering, it's not too difficult to tiptoe around doctrinally troublesome results of science.

This happens not only in Xtianity; students from Islamic countries generally prefer to go into the "hard" sciences and engineering.

And the medical profession may be interpreted as a branch of engineering; this may account for creationist doctors.

I wish to add that what he called "advanced science" may also be called "exploratory science".

 

[barbos]

I wanted to point out distinction between applied science and actual science, but you already did that.
In US they seem to put them together and this crews up statistics Applied science is engineering, so most of the physical science statistics consists of engineers, not scientists. Of course there is a spectrum between bolts&nuts engineers and quantum gravity theorists.

 

[lpetrich]

Here are some additional clues to what is going on here.

Hemant Mehta has reported in Psychiatry: The Profession of Atheists that the least religious doctors are psychiatrists. This curious result he learned form Joel Sax's Atheist Psychiatrists and Good Medicine, who in turn quoted a University of Chicago study quoted in ScienceDaily: ScienceDaily: Psychiatrists are the Least Religious of All the Specialties.

Among psychiatrists who have a religion, more than twice as many are Jewish and far fewer are Protestant or Catholic, the two most common religions among physicians overall.

The study, published in the September 2007 issue of Psychiatric Services, also found that religious physicians, especially Protestants, are less likely to refer patients to psychiatrists, and more likely to send them to members of the clergy or to a religious counselor.

Many Jews are Jews in an ethnic or cultural sense more than in some religious sense, so this might include a lot of Jewish agnostics and atheists.

Some quotes:

“Something about psychiatry, perhaps its historical ties to psychoanalysis and the anti-religious views of the early analysts such as Sigmund Freud, seems to dissuade religious medical students from choosing to specialize in this field,” said study author Farr Curlin, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. “It also seems to discourage religious physicians from referring their patients to psychiatrists.”

...

Overall, 56 percent of physicians indicated they would refer such a patient to a psychiatrist or psychologist, 25 percent to a clergy member or other religious counselor, 7 percent to a health care chaplain and 12 percent to someone else.

Although Protestant physicians were only half as likely to send the patient to a psychiatrist, Jewish physicians were more likely to do so. Least likely were highly religious Protestants who attended church at least twice a month and looked to God for guidance “a great deal or quite a lot.”

“Patients probably seek out, to some extent, physicians who share their views on life’s big questions,” Curlin said. That may be especially true in psychiatry, where communication is so essential. The mismatch in religious beliefs between psychiatrists and patients may make it difficult for patients suffering from emotional or personal problems to find physicians who share their fundamental belief systems.

Mr. Curlin seems like he's squirming in embarrassment.

It must be troubling for believers in traditional theologies to discover that the scientists whose work takes them closest to the human mind are unwilling to believe in mind-body dualism, that those closest to the "ghost in the machine" are sure that there is no ghost in that machine.

Also, those who believe that believing in and practicing their favorite sort of religion is essential to being a worthy human being must be disappointed in how this does not seem very evident to those scientists who study the human mind very closely. This conclusion agrees with what I'd earlier posted on how psychologists and anthropologists were the least religious scientists.

Joel Sax wondered about which kind of doctors would refer their patients to pastors rather than to psychiatrists; he notes

I have known people to give up their meds on the advice of a faith healer and consequently end up arrested after embarking on wild sprees. The problem is that many patients are looking for magical answers and when they are offered reality-based somatic therapy (replete with side effects) they balk.

and also

Religious talk therapy alone just does not work that well for severe depression and bipolar disorder. It’s practitioners are either woefully ignorant of what psychiatry can do or deliberately hostile lest they lose “souls” — translation: paying customers.

 

[barbos]

Psychiatrists see preachers as competitors

 

[lpetrich]

Psychiatrists see preachers as competitors

Why do you think so?

 

[lpetrich]

Epiphenom has blogged on a study on how Psychologists are the least religious of American Professors

Fifty percent of professors of psychology at US universities and colleges do not believe in any god, and another 11% are agnostic. That makes them the least religious of a pretty heathen bunch.

He went on to note the similarity to the results of a study that shows that psychiatrists are the least religious doctors. There must be something about studying the human mind that causes lack of religion, contrary to what certain religious apologetics imply -- if devotion to religion is so great, then why aren't psychologists and psychiatrists all taking that important result to heart and making themselves religious maniacs?

Epiphenom quotes from the paper:

With other factors controlled, biologists and psychologists—relative to professors outside the top 20 fields—are less likely to believe in God and less likely to hold traditional views of the Bible; professors of communications, English, and history are less likely to hold traditional views of the Bible; sociologists are less likely to have a traditionalistic religious orientation overall; and professors of accounting, finance, and nursing tend to be more religious.

Those who are oriented primarily toward research are less likely to believe in God, less likely to have a traditionalistic view of the Bible, less likely to attend religious services, more likely to describe their overall religious orientation as "not religious," and less likely to consider themselves spiritual persons.

So the bigger theorizers and intellectual explorers tend to be less religious.

Table 3 groups belief-in-god results by academic field, with these results:

Field	Atheist	Agnostic	H P -	God -
Physical and biological sciences	19.5	32.9	03.7	43.0
Social sciences	23.4	16.0	16.0	44.6
Humanities	16.3	13.0	23.6	47.1
Computer science and engineering	16.9	15.7	10.2	57.2
Other	07.0	11.7	11.7	69.6
Health	01.2	04.9	11.0	82.9

H P = Higher Power

There is a curious pattern here. Social-sciences professors had the greatest tendency to be atheists, natural-sciences professors the greatest tendency to be agnostics, and humanities professors the greatest tendency to believe in a "higher power". Health professors were the least likely to be atheists or agnostics.

Table 4 of the paper contains the type of orientation per field:

Field	Progressive	Moderate	Traditionalist	Nonreligious	Unstated
Physical and biological sciences	13.0	32.2	05.2	37.4	12.2
Social sciences	32.5	23.0	04.8	34.9	04.8
Humanities	35.0	20.7	06.6	31.7	06.1
Computer science and engineering	11.3	39.6	17.0	28.9	03.1
Business	13.5	32.3	18.8	26.0	09.4
Other	23.2	22.4	13.5	34.5	06.5
Health	12.0	36.1	36.1	12.0	03.6

Of the religious professors, the humanities and social-sciences ones have the greatest tendency to be progressive, and the natural-sciences, engineering, and business ones to be moderate. The health ones were evenly split between moderate and conservative.

These results may fit in with how humanities and social-sciences professors have the highest tendency to believe in a "higher power", and also with the greater religiosity of the health ones.

Breakdown over top 20 fields for awarding undergraduate degrees:

Field	Atheist	Agnostic	H P -	God -
Accounting	07.4	14.8	00.0	77.8
Elementary education	00.0	00.0	04.6	95.4
Finance	08.6	00.0	08.6	82.8
Marketing	20.9	04.7	07.0	67.4
Art	10.0	15.0	15.0	60.0
Criminal justice	09.3	07.4	09.3	74.0
Nursing	01.9	07.4	14.8	75.9
Economics	23.3	16.3	11.6	48.8
Management information	02.9	31.4	05.7	60.0
Electrical engineering	02.4	33.3	14.3	50.0
Computer science	21.9	15.6	06.3	56.2
Business	02.8	27.8	11.1	58.3
Sociology	17.9	17.9	25.0	39.2
History	09.4	20.8	11.3	58.5
Communication	11.1	13.3	17.8	57.8
English	13.0	16.7	22.2	48.1
Biology	27.5	33.3	02.0	37.2
Political science	22.9	18.8	16.7	41.6
Mechanical engineering	44.1	02.9	14.7	38.3
Psychology	50.0	10.9	04.4	34.7

Papers:

Gross, N., & Simmons, S. (2009). The Religiosity of American College and University Professors Sociology of Religion DOI: 10.1093/socrel/srp026 full text

Curlin, F., Odell, S., Lawrence, R., Chin, M., Lantos, J., Meador, K., & Koenig, H. (2007). The Relationship Between Psychiatry and Religion Among U.S. Physicians Psychiatric Services, 58 (9), 1193-1198 DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.58.9.1193 full text

 

[Tigers!]

Epiphenom has blogged on a study on how Psychologists are the least religious of American Professors

Fifty percent of professors of psychology at US universities and colleges do not believe in any god, and another 11% are agnostic. That makes them the least religious of a pretty heathen bunch.

He went on to note the similarity to the results of a study that shows that psychiatrists are the least religious doctors. There must be something about studying the human mind that causes lack of religion, contrary to what certain religious apologetics imply -- if devotion to religion is so great, then why aren't psychologists and psychiatrists all taking that important result to heart and making themselves religious maniacs?

Epiphenom quotes from the paper:

With other factors controlled, biologists and psychologists—relative to professors outside the top 20 fields—are less likely to believe in God and less likely to hold traditional views of the Bible; professors of communications, English, and history are less likely to hold traditional views of the Bible; sociologists are less likely to have a traditionalistic religious orientation overall; and professors of accounting, finance, and nursing tend to be more religious.

Those who are oriented primarily toward research are less likely to believe in God, less likely to have a traditionalistic view of the Bible, less likely to attend religious services, more likely to describe their overall religious orientation as "not religious," and less likely to consider themselves spiritual persons.

So the bigger theorizers and intellectual explorers tend to be less religious.

Table 3 groups belief-in-god results by academic field, with these results:

Field	Atheist	Agnostic	H P -	God -
Physical and biological sciences	19.5	32.9	03.7	43.0
Social sciences	23.4	16.0	16.0	44.6
Humanities	16.3	13.0	23.6	47.1
Computer science and engineering	16.9	15.7	10.2	57.2
Other	07.0	11.7	11.7	69.6
Health	01.2	04.9	11.0	82.9

H P = Higher Power

There is a curious pattern here. Social-sciences professors had the greatest tendency to be atheists, natural-sciences professors the greatest tendency to be agnostics, and humanities professors the greatest tendency to believe in a "higher power". Health professors were the least likely to be atheists or agnostics.

Table 4 of the paper contains the type of orientation per field:

Field	Progressive	Moderate	Traditionalist	Nonreligious	Unstated
Physical and biological sciences	13.0	32.2	05.2	37.4	12.2
Social sciences	32.5	23.0	04.8	34.9	04.8
Humanities	35.0	20.7	06.6	31.7	06.1
Computer science and engineering	11.3	39.6	17.0	28.9	03.1
Business	13.5	32.3	18.8	26.0	09.4
Other	23.2	22.4	13.5	34.5	06.5
Health	12.0	36.1	36.1	12.0	03.6

Of the religious professors, the humanities and social-sciences ones have the greatest tendency to be progressive, and the natural-sciences, engineering, and business ones to be moderate. The health ones were evenly split between moderate and conservative.

These results may fit in with how humanities and social-sciences professors have the highest tendency to believe in a "higher power", and also with the greater religiosity of the health ones.

Breakdown over top 20 fields for awarding undergraduate degrees:

Field	Atheist	Agnostic	H P -	God -
Accounting	07.4	14.8	00.0	77.8
Elementary education	00.0	00.0	04.6	95.4
Finance	08.6	00.0	08.6	82.8
Marketing	20.9	04.7	07.0	67.4
Art	10.0	15.0	15.0	60.0
Criminal justice	09.3	07.4	09.3	74.0
Nursing	01.9	07.4	14.8	75.9
Economics	23.3	16.3	11.6	48.8
Management information	02.9	31.4	05.7	60.0
Electrical engineering	02.4	33.3	14.3	50.0
Computer science	21.9	15.6	06.3	56.2
Business	02.8	27.8	11.1	58.3
Sociology	17.9	17.9	25.0	39.2
History	09.4	20.8	11.3	58.5
Communication	11.1	13.3	17.8	57.8
English	13.0	16.7	22.2	48.1
Biology	27.5	33.3	02.0	37.2
Political science	22.9	18.8	16.7	41.6
Mechanical engineering	44.1	02.9	14.7	38.3
Psychology	50.0	10.9	04.4	34.7

Papers:

Gross, N., & Simmons, S. (2009). The Religiosity of American College and University Professors Sociology of Religion DOI: 10.1093/socrel/srp026 full text

Curlin, F., Odell, S., Lawrence, R., Chin, M., Lantos, J., Meador, K., & Koenig, H. (2007). The Relationship Between Psychiatry and Religion Among U.S. Physicians Psychiatric Services, 58 (9), 1193-1198 DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.58.9.1193 full text

Did they answer the question - Does psychology make people less religious or does it attract the least religious?

 

[Tigers!]

There's an interesting article in Slate on Why do so many terrorists have engineering degrees? - By Benjamin Popper - Slate Magazine



The two main reasons:

* Difficulty of finding engineering jobs in their homelands. The main exception is Saudi Arabia, which has been able to create many more such jobs than most other Islamic nations have.

* Engineers have a mentality more suited to becoming Islamist terrorists than most other professionals. Some studies on US professors show that engineers are more likely to describe themselves as conservative or religious than professors in any other field.



Steve Bruce has noted something similar about engineers in his book God is Dead: Secularism in the West; that likely also explains the creationist-engineer phenomenon. It is sometimes called the  Salem hypothesis, after it being noticed by a certain Bruce Salem. It's remarkably common for some creationist's scientific credentials to turn out to be an engineering degree.

That Wikipedia article quoted Diego Gambetta and Steffen Hertog:

Whether American, Canadian or Islamic, and whether due to selection or field socialisation, a disproportionate share of engineers seems to have a mindset that inclines them to entertain the quintessential right-wing features of “monism” – ‘why argue when there is one best solution’ – and of "simplism” – ‘if only people were rational, remedies would be simple’.

Physics crackpots are also likely to be engineers: Pathological Physics: Tales from "The Box" - YouTube and its slides: Pathological physics

A reason that maybe why (Islamic) engineers become terrorists is that they have the opportunity to destroy something instead of building it.

This thread reminds me of joke told at a conference held at the Royal Australia Army Engineers (RAAE) conference held right after Gulf War I.
Q: What is the difference between military engineers an civilian engineers?
A: Civilian engineers build targets and military engineers destroy them.

 

[Kosh]

* Difficulty of finding engineering jobs in their homelands. The main exception is Saudi Arabia, which has been able to create many more such jobs than most other Islamic nations have.

So as I've heard hypothesized before (and driven in part by allowed polygamy), the disenfranchised more likely to lash out from frustration?

 

[lpetrich]

* Difficulty of finding engineering jobs in their homelands. The main exception is Saudi Arabia, which has been able to create many more such jobs than most other Islamic nations have.

So as I've heard hypothesized before (and driven in part by allowed polygamy), the disenfranchised more likely to lash out from frustration?

Before about a century ago, they could have been footsoldiers in this or that warlord's army. But that is not a very feasible option nowadays.

 

[Politesse]

I am an anthropologist, and my partner is an engineer. Interestingly, when we first got our terminal degrees 6 and 10 years ago respectively, we fit these trends pretty well; I was at my most agnostic and non-practicing state of religion, and he was a devout Christian fundamentalist. But in the years since, I have trended more religious if eclectically so, and he left the faith altogether.

We have conversed before on the phenomenon of the fundamentalist engineer, which is quite predictably true of students at his school in particular, having been within the northern fringe of the "Bible Belt". He is of the mind that since engineering does not rely heavily on areas of knowledge that have been directly challenged by the church, and an engineering program tends to be very narrowly focused on directly relevant fields, it was too easy for a smart mind to avoid facing an unpleasant truth. He was not often presented with data sets that could not easily be folded into his existing belief system, especially since engineers as a type are quite good at building seemingly logical structures to justify their thought patterns anyway - comes with the territory of being logic minded, it is not very hard to manipulate logic if you are emotionally compromised and unaware that you are emotionally compromised. It wasn't until he left college and started meeting more non-engineers that he started to see the disastrous, sometimes monstrous effects that fundamentalist rhetoric had on other people's lives, and started to question his premises.

Looking at trends in my own classes and students, I wonder how many lose their faith on their way to a social science degree, and how many simply start out on the path with religious convictions but wash out, never attaining a degree or choosing another field. It being much more challenging to succeed in classes where strong religious convictions are an implicit liability. I mean, I do my best to welcome everyone in my courses, but there is a certain challenge to fundamentalist assumptions inherent in the curriculum for an anthropology program, and I am never surprised when students who might be described that way drop out before the end of term. Cultural relativism and religious exclusivism do not blend well. I imagine the same is true of psychology programs, which I cannot imagine are kind to those who favor faith-based approaches in therapeutic situations. The intersocial impact of being in a program where most of one's fellow-students are atheistic should also be considered.

 

[bilby]

For very good reasons, most engineering is not experimental; Engineers often work with lookup tables and references that are simply accepted as factual, and rarely tested; The creative elements of engineering are founded on these unquestioned writings - once the Young's modulus of a particular grade of steel is known, there's no purpose in finding it out for yourself, you just look it up. If you want to know the wind loadings for a given building in a given location, you use the ones published by the local regulatory authority; Even if you could calculate them for yourself, you would be unwise to do so, as you leave yourself open to liability. Similarly, you don't sit and calculate what gauge of cable to use for a given electrical current, you look it up in the regulations. Go by the book, and your arse is covered; work it out for yourself, and you might find yourself answering some very pointed questions when people die. And people quite likely will die - because there is typically one (and only one) right answer. Specify an installation that's over-engineered, and you lose money. Specify one that is under-engineered, and you lose lives.

Engineers are primed to accept the written premises of their craft as unchallengable, and to understand that deviating from these is inviting disaster. That they tend to treat religious texts in the same way doesn't strike me as remarkable.

 

[Malintent]

My take on religiosity and the sciences is that compartmentalization is very successful. I've known many religiously indoctrinated children that were very interested in various sciences. The issue, for them, is that many of the sciences more directly oppose their religion's premise than other sciences. In order to be able to maintain their compartmentalization, Engineering may be one of the few sciences that does not fundamentally pose a challenge to scripture... except maybe the bit about Pi being equal to three... that's pretty much their only "challenge" to get past.

Religious zealots that also enjoy science (where it does not interfere in their preferred beliefs) would unsurprisingly lean towards Engineering, as it poses the least threat and also is 'sciencey'.