Scratch an atheist and you will find a skeptic!

[CHRISTINE77]

And I’m still…er…scratching my head about the significance of posting this poll.

If 20% or 60% of Catholics have a fundamentalist and literal interpretation of Scripture…so what?

That means that they have not followed the guidelines of the Faith which gave them this Bible.

I would say there are a lot of so-called Catholics who answer these polls. I know that “once a Catholic always a Catholic”, but really, it’s pretty stupid to call yourself a Catholic if you no nothing about the faith!

 

[Bradski]

And I’m still…er…scratching my head about the significance of posting this poll.

If you followed the conversation, you would have read this exchange:

Fundamentalists consider every sentence in the bible being literally true and correct.Atheists accept that some parts are historically correct, while others are allegorical, and yet others are pure fantasy or fairy tale.

Give me a fairy tale example.

Animals two by two.

And you just proved my point that Atheists are just as fundamentalist in their reading of Christian scripture as Christian fundamentalist are. After all…only atheists and Christian fundamentalist read the story of Noah’s ark as an historical event.

Uh? You didn’t ask for an example of an historical event. You wanted an example of a fairy story. I doubt that there is a single atheist anywhere on the planet who treats the story of the flood as being literally true.

And very few theists.

Your definition of ‘very few’ is different to mine. Especially when it runs into the scores of millions in just America. Sixty percent, Christine. Sixty percent believe they went in two by two. That’s an awful lot of fundamentalists.

washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/16/20040216-113955-2061r/

But you can take some consolation that only 40% of Catholics can be described as such.

If someone makes a comment that is patently incorrect, I find it useful to correct them so we don’t keep having the same comments made on multiple threads.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If someone makes a comment that is patently incorrect, I find it useful to correct them so we don’t keep having the same comments made on multiple threads.

Oh, my friend, if only this approach would work!

 

[PRmerger]

If you followed the conversation, you would have read this exchange:

If someone makes a comment that is patently incorrect, I find it useful to correct them so we don’t keep having the same comments made on multiple threads.

Oh, well, Vera’s on ignore, so…

(As I’ve oft said, I don’t dialogue with fundamentalists.)

But even so, all of the above is a nonsequitur.

Even if 90% of Catholics are fundamentalists of some sort, it doesn’t change the fact that if we SAA, we FAF.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Oh, well, Vera’s on ignore, so…

Looks like the “ignore” feature is broken… go and report it.

Even if 90% of Catholics are fundamentalists of some sort, it doesn’t change the fact that if we SAA, we FAF.

It is a very bad idea to generalize. I would never try to lump all Catholics into one group - except that they all profess to be Catholics. Some of them are smart, some are stupid, some are arrogant, some are kind.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

PRmerger;14723423:

Oh, well, Vera’s on ignore, so…

Looks like the “ignore” feature is broken… go and report it.

It’s not so much broken as much as it was never implemented very well. It only hides the messages resulting from a post of the ignored person but not the messages posted by someone else quoting the ignored person. To get an ignore function that works correctly some additional scripting is necessary to make a plug-in for one’s browser (client side ignore), as I don’t expect the software the CAF forums is running to receive a better ignore function any time soon.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not so much broken as much as it was never implemented very well. It only hides the messages resulting from a post of the ignored person but not the messages posted by someone else quoting the ignored person. To get an ignore function that works correctly some additional scripting is necessary to make a plug-in for one’s browser (client side ignore), as I don’t expect the software the CAF forums is running to receive a better ignore function any time soon.

I think it works just fine. It’s totally ok to see someone you’ve ignored on someone else’s posts.

Thanks to the above post you’ve made I can see how Vera doesn’t understand, even after being here for long enough, how the ignore feature works, and that makes me smile.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

If you followed the conversation, you would have read this exchange:

If someone makes a comment that is patently incorrect, I find it useful to correct them so we don’t keep having the same comments made on multiple threads.

Except that you did not prove your point!

 

[reggieM]

Beautifully articulated.

Thanks, PR.
I think Vera will make a very good Catholic some day.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks, PR.
I think Vera will make a very good Catholic some day.

#plantingseeds
#holyspirit

 

[inocente]

In my opinion, (and I’ve done this dozens of times), it’s easy to get frustrated with atheists for a very long list of reasons. After that, it’s easy to just generalize them as stupid, bad, evil, ignorant - or any other number of things which may or may not be true.
For me, when that happens, I realize it’s time to take a break from internet debating.

I don’t agree with that “scratch a …” thing or calling people fundamentalist unless they self-identify with that.

Back to the survey - I think it’'s dishonest to ask people questions and not reveal that their answers will cause you to give them a name of some kind.
No - ask them upfront if they identify with the term Fundamentalist. Then of course, you need to know what they mean by it.
Otherwise, it’s meaningless.

Survey designers to each other: “Hey, anybody who believes XYZ is an idiot, right? Right. Ok, we’ll find out how many idiots are out there.”.
Survey question: “Do you believe XYZ?”
Survey results: 40% of the population, by their very own words, are idiots.

No, no - you have to be upfront. No sneaky stuff like that of adding a definition to people who haven’t been informed that’s how you’re interpreting their answers.

I would like to see the number of Catholics who identify themselves as fundamentalists. I’ve never met one.

How is the term even defined? Who owns the definition? Is there an official fundamentalist organization out there? How do they know they’re it?

Thin on facts there.

The surveys have been run 22 times by Gallup since 1976 and they don’t use the term fundamentalism, they call it bible literalism. Those who read the bible literally probably prefer to self-identify using that term as it carries none of the divisive overtones of fundamentalist.

I found no objections from the USCCB or anyone else to the surveys.

The actual question asked is: "Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible? (a) the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word; (b) the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally; or (c) the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man.

The constant trend over the 40 years has been fewer people answer (a) and more (c).

In the latest survey, the number of American Catholic bible literalists is now on a par with those Catholics who answer that the bible is not inspired by God but is fables, etc, recorded by man. gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

Those who think fundamentalism a.k.a. bible literalism is closer to atheism than (c) may like to bear that in mind.

 

[inocente]

Let’s get rid of the misconceptions.

…] The church had over two thousand years to separate the facts from the allegories and the plain fairy tales… and did not do it. As such you are not in the position to make unfounded and plain wrong allegations. Atheists are skeptics. They do not believe in fairy tales, be those about talking serpents, resurrected people, walking on water, deluge covering up the peaks of the highest mountains… and so on.

It is fine to criticize atheists for what they believe or do not believe. But, for God’s sake at least familiarize yourself with WHAT atheists say and don’t say. Arguing from such ignorance all you achieve is that your credibility ratio (already very low) will get even lower. How can you spread the “good news”, if you exhibit such incredible ignorance and malevolence?

To all of you who try to denigrate the atheists by equating them to Protestant fundamentalists, I have friendly advice for you.

If you live in a glass house, don’t throw bricks around.

Hang on, hang on. It’s not as simple as fundamentalist=fairy tale, allegory=good guy.

Pope Benedict more or less calls the allegory-lite crowd revisionists. He’s very scathing, saying they’re half-hearted, as slippery as a jellyfish, a sickly Christianity “that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness”.

He acknowledges that 400 years ago everyone was a literalist: “Evidently it must have been taught differently at one time or else Galileo would never have been put on trial. … And on the whole the impression is given that the history of Christianity in the last 400 years has been a constant rearguard action as the assertions of the faith and of theology have been dismantled piece by piece.”.

In the Beginning. A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

It’s a good commentary, still on Amazon last time I looked.

 

[Vonsalza]

The surveys have been run 22 times by Gallup since 1976 and they don’t use the term fundamentalism, they call it bible literalism.

I think it would be prudent to point out that a poll isn’t asking if a person believes in biblical literalism as understood by you or the pollsters themselves. The question is answered per the interpretation of the respondent.

Case in point, if you asked me if I was a literalist or an allegorist concerning scripture, I’d reply “literalist” with very little delay. This, despite the fact that I’m well-documented on these forums as saying that the first several chapters of Genesis should not be read like one reads the “findings” section of a hypothesis test report. More obviously, we may agree that Christ’s parables should not be read as though He was reporting historical facts.

This is an inherent problem encountered with polls when the question being asked employs forced-reductionism (a fallacy). If I’m asked “Which do you use in your tea; sugar or lemon?”, the answer I must give to this false-dichotomy is not representative either way of how I actually like my tea.

I am a “both” sort of man.

 

[inocente]

I think it would be prudent to point out that a poll isn’t asking if a person believes in biblical literalism as understood by you or the pollsters themselves. The question is answered per the interpretation of the respondent.

Case in point, if you asked me if I was a literalist or an allegorist concerning scripture, I’d reply “literalist” with very little delay. This, despite the fact that I’m well-documented on these forums as saying that the first several chapters of Genesis should not be read like one reads the “findings” section of a hypothesis test report. More obviously, Christ parables should not be read as though He was reporting historical facts.

This is an inherent problem encountered with polls when the question being asked employs forced-reductionism (a fallacy).

Yes except that’s the intention. They’re called force-choice questions and are specifically designed to both eliminate any interpretation/massaging by pollsters/reviewers, and to eliminate “don’t know” and procrastination by respondents. The purpose is to make the respondent choose whatever he himself decides is closest to his beliefs and opinions. When summed over a number of respondents, this indicates what they themselves decided, unprompted.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes except that’s the intention. They’re called force-choice questions and are specifically designed to both eliminate any interpretation/massaging by pollsters/reviewers, and to eliminate “don’t know” and procrastination by respondents.

I see.

In the philosophy game, we call those “false-dichotomies” and “reductionist fallacies”.

Questions that attempt to also control the answer are bad questions.

The purpose is to make the respondent choose whatever he himself decides is closest to his beliefs and opinions. When summed over a number of respondents, this indicates what they themselves decided, unprompted.

The emphasis is mine, obviously.

“Close” only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear war.

 

[inocente]

I see.

In the philosophy game, we call those “false-dichotomies” and “reductionist fallacies”.

I don’t see how respondents determining their own response is faulty reasoning any more than making up stereotypes is sound reasoning, but the notion that closed questions are somehow a failure in reasoning is, shall we say, how to put this politely, unusual. Perhaps you should review the literature and give it a little thought while quaffing your next beer.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Hang on, hang on. It’s not as simple as fundamentalist=fairy tale, allegory=good guy.

All I said that if someone wishes to criticize atheists, they should familiarize themselves with WHAT they wish to criticize. PR and the others keep on generalizing making blanket and insulting statements.

He acknowledges that 400 years ago everyone was a literalist: “Evidently it must have been taught differently at one time or else Galileo would never have been put on trial. … And on the whole the impression is given that the history of Christianity in the last 400 years has been a constant rearguard action as the assertions of the faith and of theology have been dismantled piece by piece.”.

Wise observation.

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t see how respondents determining their own response…

The problem is that the response isn’t solely determined by the respondent in this case. They were forced by the question to pigeon-hole their view into one of a set of rigid descriptors…

The question the poll asked is thoughtless.

It takes a meta-text with passages that are unambiguously literal (like the generations in Chronicles), passages that are unambiguously allegorical (like Christ’s parables) and passages under dispute (like the creation story) and then asks if all those passages on-the-whole are literal or allegorical.

Stupid. Simply stupid.

It’s reductionism that even first-year philo students could identify with ease.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

All I said that if someone wishes to criticize atheists, they should familiarize themselves with WHAT they wish to criticize. PR and the others keep on generalizing making blanket and insulting statements.

From the point of view of the atheist it is always going to seem to be insulting that atheism is regarded as a sin (see the Catechism). It is also going to be defined as foolish (see Psalms 14:1). This can’t be helped if you want to have an honest discussion. You can describe the Catechism and Psalms as insulting, but you are better off to tolerate that others have a view they have a right to advance, especially in a Catholic forum where it is expected that, if nowhere else, the Catholic right to free speech will be tolerated.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

From the point of view of the atheist it is always going to seem to be insulting that atheism is regarded as a sin (see the Catechism).

To be called “sinful” is not really insulting, since you consider everyone - yourself included - a sinner. The problem with the “fundamentalist” label is that atheists do NOT follow the literalist interpretation of the Bible, so it is simply INCORRECT.

It is also going to be defined as foolish (see Psalms 14:1).

Yes, that is insulting. Whether you quote someone, or simply speak for yourself, to call others “fools” is a major insult.

This can’t be helped if you want to have an honest discussion. You can describe the Catechism and Psalms as insulting, but you are better off to tolerate that others have a view they have a right to advance, especially in a Catholic forum where it is expected that, if nowhere else, the Catholic right to free speech will be tolerated.

No one is supposed to use rude and insulting statements.