Atheists outdo some believers in survey on religion ~NY Times

[wanstronian]

Here is an incisive analysis of the results of the survey.

 

[JackVk]

How does this study prove anything? How does it say that atheists are morally, physically, and intellectually superior? It doesn’t.

 

[JackVk]

Here is an incisive analysis of the results of the survey.

Biased name-calling. It proves nothing.

 

[wanstronian]

Biased name-calling. It proves nothing.

Take a pill, mate - it’s a satirical news site. Jeez, where’s your sense of humour?

 

[wanstronian]

How does this study prove anything? How does it say that atheists are morally, physically, and intellectually superior? It doesn’t.

Not much gets past you, I can see.

 

[JohnDamian]

Fifty-three percent of Protestants could not identify Martin Luther as the man who started the Protestant Reformation.

Both John Wycliffe and Jan Hus happened long before Luther kicked off; and Ulrich Zwingli was teaching Sola Scriptura at least a year before Luther burned Exsurge Domine.

Anyone who says “Luther started the Reformation” is uneducated.

Forty-five percent of Catholics did not know that their church teaches that the consecrated bread and wine in holy communion are not merely symbols, but actually become the body and blood of Christ.

Being a Catholic does not stop one from being a Heretic, or from being poorly Cachetised.

Forty-three percent of Jews did not know that Maimonides, one of the foremost rabbinical authorities and philosophers, was Jewish.

This could be because many people have included him with Muslim theological movements; a clear example would be Gavriello Pico; who included Moses with others such as Al-Farabi or Averroes…

Not everyone can be an expert in Philosophy; Most atheists have never read Durandes or Alhazen; and so still eroniously call “Ockhams Razor” his own invention. They also often refer to the Middle ages as a time of Ignorance despite the fact that people such as Alhazen; Bacon and Grosseteste invented the scientific method. Knowlege of philosophy is irrelevant to religion.

“Outdoing” someone on a test like this is absurd; the test was obviously concocted by someone who has little or no understanding of religion.

 

[JackVk]

Both John Wycliffe and Jan Hus happened long before Luther kicked off; and Ulrich Zwingli was teaching Sola Scriptura at least a year before Luther burned Exsurge Domine.

Anyone who says “Luther started the Reformation” is uneducated.

Being a Catholic does not stop one from being a Heretic, or from being poorly Cachetised.

This could be because many people have included him with Muslim theological movements; a clear example would be Gavriello Pico; who included Moses with others such as Al-Farabi or Averroes…

Not everyone can be an expert in Philosophy; Most atheists have never read Durandes or Alhazen; and so still eroniously call “Ockhams Razor” his own invention. They also often refer to the Middle ages as a time of Ignorance despite the fact that people such as Alhazen; Bacon and Grosseteste invented the scientific method. Knowlege of philosophy is irrelevant to religion.

“Outdoing” someone on a test like this is absurd; the test was obviously concocted by someone who has little or no understanding of religion.

there are plenty of theist scientists as well. Oh you know…Kelvin, Mendel, Bacon, Newton, Boyle, Descartes, Copernicus, EINSTEIN, just to name a few. Now this isn’t a “my daddy can beat up your daddy” argument. I’m just pointing out that science does not require atheism.

 

[mangy_dog]

Atheism is the exclusion of God as a result of critical thought and rational enquiry.

Erm, this seems to be your personal representation of a view that I haven’t seen expressed.

I believe that the atheist justification for their correct approach to examining the existence of God, has nothing to do with the results of a theological survey. One needs to know nothing of theology in order to critically and objectively examine the offered evidence for God.

I think you’re just making stuff up so you have something to attack atheists for.

On the contrary - it is atheists and agnostics that are constantly attacking christianity and [making things up]. I"m just bobbing and weaving with the best of 'em.

There is no such thing as a “correct approach” to denying God or His Existence.

 

[Tuno]

Thanks, Adeodatus, for supplying that link; it made the thread. I got the Jewish Sabbath Q wrong, answering Saturday, forgetting the sunset before… boo. Congrats to any who got 1/1!

I thought the following were of interest by contrast:

Adeodatus~

I thought the comparison charts for how their different demographic groups fared were interesting. Since the quiz considered topics outside of the Christian faith, I’m not too dismayed at the relatively poor performance of Catholics (it’s good to know the other answers, but not necessary)… but of course I would wish that all Catholics at least get the question on the Eucharist correct.

and

Bob Crowley~

I’m not surprised that hard line atheists know more about “religion” than a lot of “religious” people. For a start they study religion in an effort to take it down. What they don’t know is God.

And I’m also not surprised that a lot of “religious” people don’t know much either. Many just blindly follow what their leaders tell them, and if a topic is outside the box, they don’t bother finding out what others might have to say about it.

and

Mangey dog~

As a catholic all you really need to do is the basic catholic things really, really well. That is, go to mass every week and days of obligation; participate of the sacraments especially confession and communion; pray the Rosary at least once a week; be at home and at work the catholic that you are at church; and have a life of prayer and of the spirit.

Silly survey is a false security blanket for atheists and agnostics.

I’m with Wanstronian on this one, but really like JackVk’s

How do we know it’s not just cursory knowledge of basic beliefs, as opposed to every nuance of every teaching?

To be a true “expert of religion”, you would have to have personally believed in every single religion there is, to be a high authority in every heirarchy. So, the atheists who claim to be so much more learned than theists would have to be rabbis, Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, Muslim imams, Hindu priests, and buddhist monks, all at once, to be “experts”.

But again Wanstronian is revelatory, imho. The “incisive analysis” is pretty snide and smacks of self congratulation, making Mangy Dog sound more correct than is credible.

What interested me most was, aside from the statistical breakdowns and a slight nod to one aspect of the chicken egg presentation, is that more faiths were not included. And of course, no surprise whatsoever, the non dualist perspective was not included as a sort of third alternative. I’m guessing that it would be the least understood of any of the systems, as even the Catholic Encyclopedia is off on it, as far as I can tell. But that gets us back to the rather sane and intriguing statement from JackVk.

If I was to do a simplistic diagram of the matter, I’d have three perspectives in one category:

a) I believe and its variants
b) I doubt and its variants
c) I don’t believe and its variants

and in another category I would have

a) Knowledge by Identity

There would be a bit of overlap depending on degree of kind and depth of mystical experience, which I’d think that atheists and agnostics might dismiss out of hand or explain differently. But primarily what I’d like to point out is that the first three all pretty unquestioningly take place in a subject/object frame of mind and proceed by argument and portions of reason. The second includes a study to some or very great depth of the nature of self reflexive awareness, a mode usually excluded from arguments in the first three categories and their common mode. A sort of hint about that mode can be found here.

I know non dualism is very obscure. Very few people, comparatively, subscribe to it. Yet it is the one consistent understanding that has spontaneously sprung up through the ages despite place, time, culture, religion, or any other factor. It is difficult to wrap one’s mind around as well, because it isn’t about the mind except as a tool to be honed for going beyond itself, so to speak. This has been a theme from before Shankara, through Jesus, and including contemporaries. It is just so rare that it would be a great surprise if it showed up even as a minor factor on such a survey as we took.

 

[wanstronian]

On the contrary - it is atheists and agnostics that are constantly attacking christianity and [making things up]. I"m just bobbing and weaving with the best of 'em.

Who’s made what up? Genuine question, I’m not denying it’s possible or even probable. It doesn’t change my opinion that you are misrepresenting atheists in general though.

There is no such thing as a “correct approach” to denying God or His Existence.

I didn’t say there was, I said there’s a correct approach to evaluating the existence of God. There’s a correct approach to evaluating any truth claim.

 

[JackVk]

Who’s made what up? Genuine question, I’m not denying it’s possible or even probable. It doesn’t change my opinion that you are misrepresenting atheists in general though.

Like when Dawkins calls the pope “the enemy of humanity” or when Hitchens calls Mother Teresa “a whore”?

 

[FirstCalled]

I agree some of the questions were poor.
I said that the Jewish Sabboth starts on Saturday because I was under the impression that Jews believe that after sunset a new day begins. It isn’t as if the sabboth spans two days…
I just woke up and I should have gotten the Nirvana question right, I knew it, but I just woke up and just saw eastern religion and blindly chose hinduism.
The last one I legitimately forgot.
This is a general religion survey. Most people who grow up in a particular tradition usually do not take time to study outside of that religion.
Perhaps atheists have a cursory knowledge of many religions, but they know nothing about true religion or God.

 

[wanstronian]

Like when Dawkins calls the pope “the enemy of humanity” or when Hitchens calls Mother Teresa “a whore”?

I think that these are intended, and should be interpreted, as metaphors. Dawkins is referring to the many of the pope’s mandates and actions (or inactions) that have led to the abuse of children, the preventable death of hundreds of thousand of African from Aids, and so on. This is quite clear from the remainder of his speech.

Similarly, I don’t think Hitchens literally means that Mother Theresa took money for sex. I can’t actually find where he said that, so I don’t know what he did mean.

But inflammatory though this is, it’s hardly ‘making stuff up’ unless you read it literally. And even if you do, it’s hardly representative of atheists in general.

 

[Leela]

Basic Religion Test Stumps Many Americans:

Read the original article here and please comment.

It is very interesting that the more people know about the world’s religions, the less likely they are to be religious. It makes sense to me since understanding that Muslims are just as convinced that their beliefs are true as Christians are that theirs are true and Jews are of theirs, etc while all these religions have contradictory beliefs reveals all religions as cultural phenomena. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong. Such a study of world religions makes clear that at least most people simply can’t actually know what they claim to know about the divine–most people must be wrong, and that makes me wonder whether anyone knows anything about the divine since no one seems to have better reasons than anyone else does for their contradictory beliefs.

 

[Abeyta85]

Here’s a quiz from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life:

features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/

Y’all should take it. Especially since that will boost my rush from bragging about my results later on.

It’s only 15 multiple choice questions. It’s really fast.

10 of 15… Time to go brush up on some study!

 

[mangy_dog]

Who’s made what up? Genuine question, I’m not denying it’s possible or even probable. It doesn’t change my opinion that you are misrepresenting atheists in general though.

I didn’t say there was, I said there’s a correct approach to evaluating the existence of God. There’s a correct approach to evaluating any truth claim.

Atheists do a pretty good job of “mis-representation” all on their own. They don’t need my help with that.

The word of God and His Son’s words are absolute truth! Jesus Christ is one in being with the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit.

You still don’t get it do you? [a correct approach to “evaluating” the existence of God] ?!? How arrogant.

You and other atheists should take a few lessons from the catholic mystics and contemplatives and look deep into your souls. And maybe, just maybe God may grant you the grace of reaching that point and finding that it is God who commands you to live and it is God who sustains your life in existence.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It is very interesting that the more people know about the world’s religions, the less likely they are to be religious. It makes sense to me since understanding that Muslims are just as convinced that their beliefs are true as Christians are that theirs are true and Jews are of theirs, etc while all these religions have contradictory beliefs reveals all religions as cultural phenomena. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong. Such a study of world religions makes clear that at least most people simply can’t actually know what they claim to know about the divine–most people must be wrong, and that makes me wonder whether anyone knows anything about the divine since no one seems to have better reasons than anyone else does for their contradictory beliefs.

You know, it’s funny you say that, Leela. I took the 32 question test at the Christian Science Monitor and you know what? I scored 100%. In fact, I thought the questions were actually very elementary, and I mean for ALL the religions mentioned.

And I think you have gathered from my posts that I am a very faithful, devout, 100% believer in Catholicism, totally faithful to the Magesterium.

And this in spite of the fact that I have indeed studied world religions --not just in my old college "Comparative Religions’ class of the 1970s but consistently since, as so many of my friends and family practice very different beliefs.

I wonder what happened? Somehow I beat the odds, for which I am --devoutly–thankful.

 

[Leela]

You know, it’s funny you say that, Leela. I took the 32 question test at the Christian Science Monitor and you know what? I scored 100%. In fact, I thought the questions were actually very elementary, and I mean for ALL the religions mentioned.

And I think you have gathered from my posts that I am a very faithful, devout, 100% believer in Catholicism, totally faithful to the Magesterium.

And this in spite of the fact that I have indeed studied world religions --not just in my old college "Comparative Religions’ class of the 1970s but consistently since, as so many of my friends and family practice very different beliefs.

I wonder what happened? Somehow I beat the odds, for which I am --devoutly–thankful.

I got a couple wrong, but our results are just a couple of anecdotes. The data say that atheists and agnostics tend to score better than Catholics. Why do you suppose that is?

It could be that people who are religious don’t tend to bother to learn about other religions and that people who do learn about other religions come to find them all unsatisfactory.

What do you make of the fact that Protestants tended to score higher than Catholics?

What do you make of the fact that almost half of Catholics don’t know that the wine and bread literally become the body and blood of Jesus? I wonder what percent of Catholics actually have beliefs more consistent with Protestantism.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I got a couple wrong, but our results are just a couple of anecdotes. The data say that atheists and agnostics tend to score better than Catholics. Why do you suppose that is?

It could be that people who are religious don’t tend to bother to learn about other religions and that people who do learn about other religions come to find them all unsatisfactory.

What do you make of the fact that Protestants tended to score higher than Catholics?

What do you make of the fact that almost half of Catholics don’t know that the wine and bread literally become the body and blood of Jesus? I wonder what percent of Catholics actually have beliefs more consistent with Protestantism.

Actually, considering the relatively small numbers of participants who were counted for the survey, there isn’t all that much that one could say. After all, I would simply be considered “Catholic” for that survey. . .and as you know from your sojourn here, there are plenty of people who identify themselves as Catholic but never practiced, or stopped practicing years ago, or practice ‘cultural’ or ‘familial’ variations, or who were either taught improperly or somehow just didn’t learn correctly. . .they would be considered “Catholic” just as I am. So, of the tiny selection of actual Catholics interviewed, did they manage to find a population ‘skewed’ to the 'identifies Catholic but doesn’t practice?" Or the ones who know a bit about their faith, but not much about others? Surely there are plenty of people on these forums alone who would have done much better than those who were actually tested (as well as those who would have done about the same, or worse. We simply don’t have enough of a data base to know though and be able to comment with any degree of certainty what the ‘average’ Catholic does or does not know (or the average atheist either.)

Did they find a more ‘skewed’ population of identified Catholics who might be able to identify more clearly outside a ‘multiple guess’ format? Ones who just don’t test well? Who knows?

Of course, the same goes for all the others, including Protestants and atheists. Was the "atheist population’ somehow more skewed to those who not only ‘test well’ but who had a good grasp of basic knowledge?

If this test were given again to the same number of people but to different people, would the scores change? Who knows?

 

[Leela]

Actually, considering the relatively small numbers of participants who were counted for the survey, there isn’t all that much that one could say. After all, I would simply be considered “Catholic” for that survey. . .and as you know from your sojourn here, there are plenty of people who identify themselves as Catholic but never practiced, or stopped practicing years ago, or practice ‘cultural’ or ‘familial’ variations, or who were either taught improperly or somehow just didn’t learn correctly. . .they would be considered “Catholic” just as I am. So, of the tiny selection of actual Catholics interviewed, did they manage to find a population ‘skewed’ to the 'identifies Catholic but doesn’t practice?" Or the ones who know a bit about their faith, but not much about others? Surely there are plenty of people on these forums alone who would have done much better than those who were actually tested (as well as those who would have done about the same, or worse. We simply don’t have enough of a data base to know though and be able to comment with any degree of certainty what the ‘average’ Catholic does or does not know (or the average atheist either.)

Did they find a more ‘skewed’ population of identified Catholics who might be able to identify more clearly outside a ‘multiple guess’ format? Ones who just don’t test well? Who knows?

Of course, the same goes for all the others, including Protestants and atheists. Was the "atheist population’ somehow more skewed to those who not only ‘test well’ but who had a good grasp of basic knowledge?

If this test were given again to the same number of people but to different people, would the scores change? Who knows?

Of course we would have different results from a different random sample. The question is about the plausibility of getting results that are very different from what was observed given the size of the sample (3400). Statisticians are able to compute margins of errors in these sorts of situations to predict how off the results of the sample could plausibly be from the true population averages.

If you are interested in the methodology, you can check here:
pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-Appendix-A-Survey-Methodology.aspx