But the study says that a lot of people don't even know basic shit about Christianity.
Well, you don't learn much about it in church. Church tends to be a dude telling you what Jesus/God would do and ranting about the issue of the day. You know, like gay people, or that Islam is devil worship.
So people walk away with it basing it off what pastor Phelps said. Even though often what the preacher man tells you not only has no basis in reality, but actively contradicts what the bible says.
Oddly enough Church is one of the worst places to learn about Christianity.
But the study says that a lot of people don't even know basic shit about Christianity.
That's what disturbs me about it. This isn't the kind of study that only people with theological doctorals know. This is layman common knowledge stuff. If it was questions like the problem of evil and free will, I might give a little more leway. But its questions like "Where was Jesus born?"
But the study says that a lot of people don't even know basic shit about Christianity.
Well, you don't learn much about it in church. Church tends to be a dude telling you what Jesus/God would do and ranting about the issue of the day. You know, like gay people, or that Islam is devil worship.
So people walk away with it basing it off what pastor Phelps said. Even though often what the preacher man tells you not only has no basis in reality, but actively contradicts what the bible says.
Oddly enough Church is one of the worst places to learn about Christianity.
Yeah, instilling knowledge in the flock isn't very high on the priority list.
I'm pretty sure all this study indicates is that people don't bother to learn about their own religion when the primary significance of it to them is cultural and familial. People tend to be a certain religion because that's how they were brought up and it's a significant part of their life, and so the finer parts of doctrine aren't terribly important to your average layman as much as holiday and ritual.
As opposed to agnostics/atheists whose "religious" beliefs tend to do more with the actual religious substance and less with other things.
A lot of people probably default to self-identify as whatever religion they ostensibly grew up in. There's a lot of variation among religious people in the level of knowledge and devotion they have to whatever religion they check off on surveys like this.
For example, a lot of Catholics are "cultural Catholics"- they grew up in the Church and the traditions are part of their family tradition, but they never really studied the tenets too deeply.
I wonder how these stats would break down if you looked at people who converted to a given religion as opposed to those who grew up in it. The former usually involves more active exploration of the religion.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
This really isn't surprising to me. We know that atheism (and probably also agnosticism) has a positive correlation with education. I am willing to bet that a test of general knowledge in any area is going to show atheists and agnostics (and Jews!) doing very well compared to other faith groups.
It remains constant even when level of education is taken into account.
It's not about general education, it's about religious education.
It doesn't take very much information to just accept what you are told. To turn against it and/or find a new way requires a bit of research, though.
Seeing as the majority of atheists/agnostics out there were born in to a religion, and turned away from it, it stands to reason that they have looked more deeply in to the religion before making their decision (not to say that everyone who looks in to it turns away, moreso that people who do not look in at all are simply less likely to make any sort of change whatsoever.)
And Jews, of course, treat study fo their religion as a tenet of the religion itself, which explains their place on the list.
I'm pretty sure all this study indicates is that people don't bother to learn about their own religion when the primary significance of it to them is cultural and familial. People tend to be a certain religion because that's how they were brought up and it's a significant part of their life, and so the finer parts of doctrine aren't terribly important to your average layman as much as holiday and ritual.
As opposed to agnostics/atheists whose "religious" beliefs tend to do more with the actual religious substance and less with other things.
A lot of people probably default to self-identify as whatever religion they ostensibly grew up in. There's a lot of variation among religious people in the level of knowledge and devotion they have to whatever religion they check off on surveys like this.
For example, a lot of Catholics are "cultural Catholics"- they grew up in the Church and the traditions are part of their family tradition, but they never really studied the tenets too deeply.
I wonder how these stats would break down if you looked at people who converted to a given religion as opposed to those who grew up in it. The former usually involves more active exploration of the religion.
That would be interesting. See if the addage "No one more zealous or fantical than a convert" is actually true.
In this study, a person’s degree of religious commitment is measured by combining two
questions, one asking about the importance of religion in the person’s life and the other
asking how often the person attends worship services. Religious commitment has a
complicated relationship with religious knowledge. People with a high level of religious
commitment – those who describe religion as “very important” in their lives and who say
they attend worship services at least once a week – answer 17 of the 32 religious
knowledge questions correctly on average. People with a low level of religious commitment
perform at the national norm, answering an average of 16 questions correctly.
But, interestingly, people with a medium level of religious commitment get fewer
questions right (14.8 on average) than people with either high or low commitment.
Moreover, statistical analyses
that look simultaneously at
different factors in religious
knowledge reveal that the
most pronounced differences
are between people with the
highest levels of religious
commitment and everyone
else. In other words, once
education, religious affiliation
and other factors are
controlled for, differences
in religious knowledge between
those with low and
medium levels of religious
commitment mostly go away.
But people with a high level
of religious commitment
continue to display higher
religious knowledge, even
when other factors are
held equal.
In general, people who say they do not
believe that the Bible is the word of God
score higher on the survey than do those who do view the Bible as the word of God.
Respondents who say the Bible was written by man and is not the word of God get 18
questions right, on average. Those who say the Bible is the word of God but should not
be taken literally get an average of 16.3 questions right. And those who say the Bible
is the word of God and should be taken literally, word for word, get an average of 14.5
questions right.
I'm pretty sure all this study indicates is that people don't bother to learn about their own religion when the primary significance of it to them is cultural and familial. People tend to be a certain religion because that's how they were brought up and it's a significant part of their life, and so the finer parts of doctrine aren't terribly important to your average layman as much as holiday and ritual.
As opposed to agnostics/atheists whose "religious" beliefs tend to do more with the actual religious substance and less with other things.
A lot of people probably default to self-identify as whatever religion they ostensibly grew up in. There's a lot of variation among religious people in the level of knowledge and devotion they have to whatever religion they check off on surveys like this.
For example, a lot of Catholics are "cultural Catholics"- they grew up in the Church and the traditions are part of their family tradition, but they never really studied the tenets too deeply.
I wonder how these stats would break down if you looked at people who converted to a given religion as opposed to those who grew up in it. The former usually involves more active exploration of the religion.
That would be interesting. See if the addage "No one more zealous or fantical than a convert" is actually true.
The sabbath question is tricky, and I wouldn't expect a non-jew to necessarily know the specifics since- practically speaking- the bulk of the sabbath actually takes place on Saturday.
adytum on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
And Jews, of course, treat study fo their religion as a tenet of the religion itself, which explains their place on the list.
I'd be a lot more respectful of other religions if they had similar tenets. Otherwise it just seems like they're trying to net as many complacent dummies as possible.
And Jews, of course, treat study fo their religion as a tenet of the religion itself, which explains their place on the list.
I'd be a lot more respectful of other religions if they had similar tenets. Otherwise it just seems like they're trying to net as many complacent dummies as possible.
To be sure, American protestantism is quantity over quality, as long as you get the major political points (gays = bad, abortion = bad) right.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The sabbath question is tricky, and I wouldn't expect a non-jew to necessarily know the specifics since- practically speaking- the bulk of the sabbath actually takes place on Saturday.
Yeah I failed that one. I also inexplicably said that the majority of people in Pakistan were hindus, which is of course silly.
This really isn't surprising to me. We know that atheism (and probably also agnosticism) has a positive correlation with education. I am willing to bet that a test of general knowledge in any area is going to show atheists and agnostics (and Jews!) doing very well compared to other faith groups.
It remains constant even when level of education is taken into account.
It's not about general education, it's about religious education.
It doesn't take very much information to just accept what you are told. To turn against it and/or find a new way requires a bit of research, though.
Seeing as the majority of atheists/agnostics out there were born in to a religion, and turned away from it, it stands to reason that they have looked more deeply in to the religion before making their decision (not to say that everyone who looks in to it turns away, moreso that people who do not look in at all are simply less likely to make any sort of change whatsoever.)
And Jews, of course, treat study fo their religion as a tenet of the religion itself, which explains their place on the list.
I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. Education invariable involves questioning the world around you, which could lead to questioning religion and eventually to agnosticism/atheism. I'm not saying this is true in all case, only that general education can lead atheism. This could be a reason for the skew between education level and religious belief/lack-there-of.
I will say I've always been astounded that there are people who apparently:
a) believe the Bible is the most important book ever written and contains insight into the nature of the universe provided by its creator, and
b) haven't read it.
Compared with Moses, Abraham is less well-known, with 60% of all Americans correctly
identifying him as the biblical figure who was willing to sacrifice his son’s life for God.
Fewer (39%) identify Job as the biblical figure known for remaining obedient to God
despite extraordinary suffering.
The question:
47. Which Bible figure is most closely associated with (INSERT STATEMENT)?
Is it …?
(READ LIST)
1 Job (Jobe)
2 Elijah (uh-LIE-jah)
3 Moses
4 Abraham
D (DO NOT READ) Don't know
R (DO NOT READ) Refused
a. Remaining obedient to God despite suffering
NO ITEM B
c. Leading the exodus from Egypt
d. Willingness to sacrifice his son for God
There is a fucking book of the Bible called with his name as the title! Come on, it isn't like this isn't one of the less well known tales.
And Jews, of course, treat study fo their religion as a tenet of the religion itself, which explains their place on the list.
I'd be a lot more respectful of other religions if they had similar tenets. Otherwise it just seems like they're trying to net as many complacent dummies as possible.
Judaism is not meant to be a universal religion, as shown by the difficulty in converting to Judaism. It's entry requirements are pretty high. That's one of the reasons it has remained so small, while other religions like Christianity and Islam have grown to include hundreds of millions of worshippers.
The point of Christianity or Islam is to rack up as many faithful as possible and, ideally, convert the entire world. You can't do that if you require a lot of effort on the part of converts. Converting the entire world was never a goal of Judaism.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
And Jews, of course, treat study fo their religion as a tenet of the religion itself, which explains their place on the list.
I'd be a lot more respectful of other religions if they had similar tenets. Otherwise it just seems like they're trying to net as many complacent dummies as possible.
Judaism is not meant to be a universal religion, as shown by the difficulty in converting to Judaism. It's entry requirements are pretty high. That's one of the reasons it has remained so small, while other religions like Christianity and Islam have grown to include hundreds of millions of worshippers.
The point of Christianity or Islam is to rack up as many faithful as possible and, ideally, convert the entire world. You can't do that if you require a lot of effort on the part of converts. Converting the entire world was never a goal of Judaism.
I'd attribute it largely to the frequent social situation where "not having faith" is not enough and one needs to make an actual argument about being an atheist, while "I believe!" is A-Ok.
And Jews, of course, treat study fo their religion as a tenet of the religion itself, which explains their place on the list.
I'd be a lot more respectful of other religions if they had similar tenets. Otherwise it just seems like they're trying to net as many complacent dummies as possible.
Judaism is not meant to be a universal religion, as shown by the difficulty in converting to Judaism. It's entry requirements are pretty high. That's one of the reasons it has remained so small, while other religions like Christianity and Islam have grown to include hundreds of millions of worshippers.
The point of Christianity or Islam is to rack up as many faithful as possible and, ideally, convert the entire world. You can't do that if you require a lot of effort on the part of converts. Converting the entire world was never a goal of Judaism.
Interestingly enough, Mormonism requires a lot of effort on the part of converts as well (no caffeine, no drinking, required tithing, temple work, lay ministry, etc.). But, it must be noted, that Mormonism is a religion that makes great strides to give you all the answers. In that way, it is one of the easiest religions to be a part of.
I'd attribute it largely to the frequent social situation where "not having faith" is not enough and one needs to make an actual argument about being an atheist, while "I believe!" is A-Ok.
Does this happen often? If so, how does it work? Is it because religious people are confused and what answers, or is it that other non religious people challenge your beliefs? I guess it is the former right?
And Jews, of course, treat study fo their religion as a tenet of the religion itself, which explains their place on the list.
I'd be a lot more respectful of other religions if they had similar tenets. Otherwise it just seems like they're trying to net as many complacent dummies as possible.
Judaism is not meant to be a universal religion, as shown by the difficulty in converting to Judaism. It's entry requirements are pretty high. That's one of the reasons it has remained so small, while other religions like Christianity and Islam have grown to include hundreds of millions of worshippers.
The point of Christianity or Islam is to rack up as many faithful as possible and, ideally, convert the entire world. You can't do that if you require a lot of effort on the part of converts. Converting the entire world was never a goal of Judaism.
Yeah, that's something else I like about Judaism.
It's even difficult to be born into it.
Luckily the requirements have slackened a bit over the centuries.
My point was that identifying one's self as "Catholic" in a religious questionnaire does not and should not necessarily lead to an expectation that the person is factually knowledgable about specific aspects of Catholicism. Many people think it should, but religion and religious identity simply are not entirely a matter of one's factual knowledge and analysis. It isn't the same thing as identifying one's self as a "lawyer" but then not displaying basic factual knowledge of the law.
Asking "are you an expert on Catholicism" or "are you a Catholic" are not the same question. Maybe Catholicism as the example is muddying the point here. I bet practically no one in the local Baptist church congregation could tell you what makes Baptism and Presbyterrianism different. The religion you "are" is often a matter or family or friends as well as personal spiritual beliefs. Maybe you go to church and maybe you don't. Maybe you never paid attention. Maybe the question was worded strongly enough that it made the truth seem ambiguous to many Catholics depending on their interpretation and local priest practices.
I'd attribute it largely to the frequent social situation where "not having faith" is not enough and one needs to make an actual argument about being an atheist, while "I believe!" is A-Ok.
Does this happen often? If so, how does it work? Is it because religious people are confused and what answers, or is it that other non religious people challenge your beliefs? I guess it is the former right?
In my expereince, and this is purely anecdotal, I often find that I have to defend my lack of beliefs. I do, however, live smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt. Kalkino, again just my experience, is right in that regard. The cultural standard has been broken, therefore you must defend that choice. I don't devulge my atheism in casual conversation unless prompted, so it's really them doing the probing. Almost invariably, the first quest is "Well, can you prove God doesn't exist?" and having to explain why that isn't the right question to ask is both frustrating and exhausting.
I'd attribute it largely to the frequent social situation where "not having faith" is not enough and one needs to make an actual argument about being an atheist, while "I believe!" is A-Ok.
Does this happen often? If so, how does it work? Is it because religious people are confused and what answers, or is it that other non religious people challenge your beliefs? I guess it is the former right?
Not sure what you're asking me?
I'm a pretty non-militant atheist(to a point where the only thing I get worked up about is the relationship between religion and children), but it does happen that a new acquaintance would try and start a conversation on the topic(specifically targeted at myself or another present atheist), and in most case (s)he wouldn't be inviting a debate, but lecturing from a position of spiritual superiority while not being familiar with the dogmas of his/hers own religion.
So, my point was that if one is an atheist, having at least a slightly above average knowledge about the dominant religion in the place you live is kind of useful.
My point was that identifying one's self as "Catholic" in a religious questionnaire does not and should not necessarily lead to an expectation that the person is factually knowledgable about specific aspects of Catholicism. Many people think it should, but religion and religious identity simply are not entirely a matter of one's factual knowledge and analysis. It isn't the same thing as identifying one's self as a "lawyer" but then not displaying basic factual knowledge of the law.
Asking "are you an expert on Catholicism" or "are you a Catholic" are not the same question. Maybe Catholicism as the example is muddying the point here. I bet practically no one in the local Baptist church congregation could tell you what makes Baptism and Presbyterrianism different. The religion you "are" is often a matter or family or friends as well as personal spiritual beliefs. Maybe you go to church and maybe you don't. Maybe you never paid attention. Maybe the question was worded strongly enough that it made the truth seem ambiguous to many Catholics depending on their interpretation and local priest practices.
Claiming you are a religion you don't really believe in is a stupid thing to do.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
My point was that identifying one's self as "Catholic" in a religious questionnaire does not and should not necessarily lead to an expectation that the person is factually knowledgable about specific aspects of Catholicism. Many people think it should, but religion and religious identity simply are not entirely a matter of one's factual knowledge and analysis. It isn't the same thing as identifying one's self as a "lawyer" but then not displaying basic factual knowledge of the law.
Asking "are you an expert on Catholicism" or "are you a Catholic" are not the same question. Maybe Catholicism as the example is muddying the point here. I bet practically no one in the local Baptist church congregation could tell you what makes Baptism and Presbyterrianism different. The religion you "are" is often a matter or family or friends as well as personal spiritual beliefs. Maybe you go to church and maybe you don't. Maybe you never paid attention. Maybe the question was worded strongly enough that it made the truth seem ambiguous to many Catholics depending on their interpretation and local priest practices.
You're creating a strawman here. YoAgain, the questions in the survey don't require theological doctorals. These are questions like "Where was Jesus born?" and "Does the bread actually turn into flash?" These are very simple questions with multiple choice answers provided.
I'd attribute it largely to the frequent social situation where "not having faith" is not enough and one needs to make an actual argument about being an atheist, while "I believe!" is A-Ok.
Does this happen often? If so, how does it work? Is it because religious people are confused and what answers, or is it that other non religious people challenge your beliefs? I guess it is the former right?
Depends on where you live. In places like DC, NY, LA, people tend to be less religious.
But when I lived in Michigan, religion was a pretty big deal. Every Wednesday was Bible study night for many of my friends and a lot of my classmates belonged to religious youth groups. Other places, such as small towns in the South and Utah, are probably even more religiously-oriented. If you were openly atheist in those places, you were kind of an odd duck.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I'd attribute it largely to the frequent social situation where "not having faith" is not enough and one needs to make an actual argument about being an atheist, while "I believe!" is A-Ok.
Does this happen often? If so, how does it work? Is it because religious people are confused and what answers, or is it that other non religious people challenge your beliefs? I guess it is the former right?
When you live in a culture, you pick up some cultural knowledge. If you're a Muslim and you live in America, you probably know when Christmas is and have a vague idea what its about, even if you don't study Christianity at all. If you're a Christian living in America, the only way you'd pick up knowledge about Ramadan would be if you went out and specifically studied it.
I think its less that non-Christians are smarter because they have to defend their beliefs and more that non-Christians have a knowledge set that is, in American, outside the norm.
So if you're an atheist, you're going to have ideas and arguments about religion as part of your belief system and you're also going to have ideas and arguments about religion that you pick up simply by living in America. As a Christian, you'd still have those default cultural ideas and arguments, but you wouldn't be exposed to the non-mainstream concepts unless you specifically sought them out.
My point was that identifying one's self as "Catholic" in a religious questionnaire does not and should not necessarily lead to an expectation that the person is factually knowledgable about specific aspects of Catholicism. Many people think it should, but religion and religious identity simply are not entirely a matter of one's factual knowledge and analysis. It isn't the same thing as identifying one's self as a "lawyer" but then not displaying basic factual knowledge of the law.
Asking "are you an expert on Catholicism" or "are you a Catholic" are not the same question. Maybe Catholicism as the example is muddying the point here. I bet practically no one in the local Baptist church congregation could tell you what makes Baptism and Presbyterrianism different. The religion you "are" is often a matter or family or friends as well as personal spiritual beliefs. Maybe you go to church and maybe you don't. Maybe you never paid attention. Maybe the question was worded strongly enough that it made the truth seem ambiguous to many Catholics depending on their interpretation and local priest practices.
Claiming you are a religion you don't really believe in is a stupid thing to do.
This is because, as a lot of people in this threa have stated, for many people religion is as much about culture and family as it is about the actual technical details of belief.
I'd attribute it largely to the frequent social situation where "not having faith" is not enough and one needs to make an actual argument about being an atheist, while "I believe!" is A-Ok.
Does this happen often? If so, how does it work? Is it because religious people are confused and what answers, or is it that other non religious people challenge your beliefs? I guess it is the former right?
In my expereince, and this is purely anecdotal, I often find that I have to defend my lack of beliefs. I do, however, live smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt. Kalkino, again just my experience, is right in that regard. The cultural standard has been broken, therefore you must defend that choice. I don't devulge my atheism in casual conversation unless prompted, so it's really them doing the probing. Almost invariably, the first quest is "Well, can you prove God doesn't exist?" and having to explain why that isn't the right question to ask is both frustrating and exhausting.
Thanks for your experience on that one. It is interesting to see how this kind of discussion comes up. Religion does come up a bit in my circles but from other directions (say the recent Papal visit) and I don't think I've ever had a discussion with anyone where I've had to justify my lack of belief to a believer as part of a social encounter, if by that we are talking about small talk with people you've just met. It would be the height of rudeness, but then London or NZ (where I'm from) are not that religious
My point was that identifying one's self as "Catholic" in a religious questionnaire does not and should not necessarily lead to an expectation that the person is factually knowledgable about specific aspects of Catholicism. Many people think it should, but religion and religious identity simply are not entirely a matter of one's factual knowledge and analysis. It isn't the same thing as identifying one's self as a "lawyer" but then not displaying basic factual knowledge of the law.
Asking "are you an expert on Catholicism" or "are you a Catholic" are not the same question. Maybe Catholicism as the example is muddying the point here. I bet practically no one in the local Baptist church congregation could tell you what makes Baptism and Presbyterrianism different. The religion you "are" is often a matter or family or friends as well as personal spiritual beliefs. Maybe you go to church and maybe you don't. Maybe you never paid attention. Maybe the question was worded strongly enough that it made the truth seem ambiguous to many Catholics depending on their interpretation and local priest practices.
Claiming you are a religion you don't really believe in is a stupid thing to do.
Religion is a very loosely defined concept, there's no really useful way to argue if someone is a "real" believer.
In this study, a person’s degree of religious commitment is measured by combining two
questions, one asking about the importance of religion in the person’s life and the other
asking how often the person attends worship services. Religious commitment has a
complicated relationship with religious knowledge. People with a high level of religious
commitment – those who describe religion as “very important” in their lives and who say
they attend worship services at least once a week – answer 17 of the 32 religious
knowledge questions correctly on average. People with a low level of religious commitment
perform at the national norm, answering an average of 16 questions correctly.
But, interestingly, people with a medium level of religious commitment get fewer
questions right (14.8 on average) than people with either high or low commitment.
Moreover, statistical analyses
that look simultaneously at
different factors in religious
knowledge reveal that the
most pronounced differences
are between people with the
highest levels of religious
commitment and everyone
else. In other words, once
education, religious affiliation
and other factors are
controlled for, differences
in religious knowledge between
those with low and
medium levels of religious
commitment mostly go away.
But people with a high level
of religious commitment
continue to display higher
religious knowledge, even
when other factors are
held equal.
In general, people who say they do not
believe that the Bible is the word of God
score higher on the survey than do those who do view the Bible as the word of God.
Respondents who say the Bible was written by man and is not the word of God get 18
questions right, on average. Those who say the Bible is the word of God but should not
be taken literally get an average of 16.3 questions right. And those who say the Bible
is the word of God and should be taken literally, word for word, get an average of 14.5
questions right.
Spoilered for formatting.
What interests me about this is that religious commitment doesn't seem to equate to religious fundamentalism or literalism.
if anything, these statistics show that people who are more flexible and open in their belief system are more committed.
My point was that identifying one's self as "Catholic" in a religious questionnaire does not and should not necessarily lead to an expectation that the person is factually knowledgable about specific aspects of Catholicism. Many people think it should, but religion and religious identity simply are not entirely a matter of one's factual knowledge and analysis. It isn't the same thing as identifying one's self as a "lawyer" but then not displaying basic factual knowledge of the law.
Asking "are you an expert on Catholicism" or "are you a Catholic" are not the same question. Maybe Catholicism as the example is muddying the point here. I bet practically no one in the local Baptist church congregation could tell you what makes Baptism and Presbyterrianism different. The religion you "are" is often a matter or family or friends as well as personal spiritual beliefs. Maybe you go to church and maybe you don't. Maybe you never paid attention. Maybe the question was worded strongly enough that it made the truth seem ambiguous to many Catholics depending on their interpretation and local priest practices.
Claiming you are a religion you don't really believe in is a stupid thing to do.
This is because, as a lot of people in this threa have stated, for many people religion is as much about culture and family as it is about the actual technical details of belief.
Which is a dumb way to go about it.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
My point was that identifying one's self as "Catholic" in a religious questionnaire does not and should not necessarily lead to an expectation that the person is factually knowledgable about specific aspects of Catholicism. Many people think it should, but religion and religious identity simply are not entirely a matter of one's factual knowledge and analysis. It isn't the same thing as identifying one's self as a "lawyer" but then not displaying basic factual knowledge of the law.
Asking "are you an expert on Catholicism" or "are you a Catholic" are not the same question. Maybe Catholicism as the example is muddying the point here. I bet practically no one in the local Baptist church congregation could tell you what makes Baptism and Presbyterrianism different. The religion you "are" is often a matter or family or friends as well as personal spiritual beliefs. Maybe you go to church and maybe you don't. Maybe you never paid attention. Maybe the question was worded strongly enough that it made the truth seem ambiguous to many Catholics depending on their interpretation and local priest practices.
Claiming you are a religion you don't really believe in is a stupid thing to do.
This is because, as a lot of people in this threa have stated, for many people religion is as much about culture and family as it is about the actual technical details of belief.
Which is a dumb way to go about it.
I'm an atheist and I participate in the festivities part of religious holidays with friends and/or family. I'm also pretty sure that I know people who actually identify as religious simply to not feel excluded in the family. Which isn't to say it's not a dumb way to go about it, I guess.
I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I'd assume a lot (if not most) atheists/agnostics started out as believers in one religion or another. Personally, I started out as a Roman Catholic. I went through 8 years of Catholic schooling. We went to church most Sundays. I was even an alter-boy for a few years.
My journey to secularism involve a great deal of self-discovery, effort, and analysis. I'd guess that the number of people who converted to atheist/agnostic on a whim is very limited. You don't just disavow everything you've been brought up believing (especially when that belief involves going to hell for non-belief) without a lot of thought into the details of those beliefs.
On the other hand, if you were raised with a belief in a particular religion, it really doesn't take any effort at all to just go through life with a vague understanding and acceptance of your particular religion's basis. In a lot of ways, this is actually the easiest path because you get the sociological and psychological benefits of being able to self-identify with a large group of (supposedly) like-minded people without all the soul searching.
TheCanMan on
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
edited September 2010
People who aren't interested in examining their faith, their ethics and their philosophy probably won't be very interested in learning anything deep and meaningful anyways. Atheists and agnostics actually sat down and thought about it, as have many religious individuals, and decided what they believe and don't believe. People who throw themselves into a religion or who are brought up in a religion and never question it aren't nearly as curious about such things and naturally will probably be not very interested or curious in other things.
The onus is on the individual to give a shit. Friends and family is ultimately irrelevant to what you truly believe, and your only lying to yourself if you let outside forces tell you what you believe in. The only time that happens is under threat of violence and persecution.
This study tells me that people who are open minded and curious about the world around them, religious or not, are better then people who follow a religion to the letter and skew their mind to that way of thinking and thus suffer for it.
I expect a person who is culturally Catholic to know about transubstantiation considering you can't grow up in a Catholic environment without hearing about it from a priest.
Posts
Seriously, there nothing good waiting down that road.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
Metacannibalism
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
Well, you don't learn much about it in church. Church tends to be a dude telling you what Jesus/God would do and ranting about the issue of the day. You know, like gay people, or that Islam is devil worship.
So people walk away with it basing it off what pastor Phelps said. Even though often what the preacher man tells you not only has no basis in reality, but actively contradicts what the bible says.
Oddly enough Church is one of the worst places to learn about Christianity.
That's what disturbs me about it. This isn't the kind of study that only people with theological doctorals know. This is layman common knowledge stuff. If it was questions like the problem of evil and free will, I might give a little more leway. But its questions like "Where was Jesus born?"
Which type of Christian is actively protesting? Which type is lobbying for more conservative legislation?
Yeah, instilling knowledge in the flock isn't very high on the priority list.
For example, a lot of Catholics are "cultural Catholics"- they grew up in the Church and the traditions are part of their family tradition, but they never really studied the tenets too deeply.
I wonder how these stats would break down if you looked at people who converted to a given religion as opposed to those who grew up in it. The former usually involves more active exploration of the religion.
Rigorous Scholarship
It's not about general education, it's about religious education.
It doesn't take very much information to just accept what you are told. To turn against it and/or find a new way requires a bit of research, though.
Seeing as the majority of atheists/agnostics out there were born in to a religion, and turned away from it, it stands to reason that they have looked more deeply in to the religion before making their decision (not to say that everyone who looks in to it turns away, moreso that people who do not look in at all are simply less likely to make any sort of change whatsoever.)
And Jews, of course, treat study fo their religion as a tenet of the religion itself, which explains their place on the list.
That would be interesting. See if the addage "No one more zealous or fantical than a convert" is actually true.
Interestingly enough, Pew Research has a study on this very thing. Turns out the zeal of converts is real but modest.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
I'd be a lot more respectful of other religions if they had similar tenets. Otherwise it just seems like they're trying to net as many complacent dummies as possible.
To be sure, American protestantism is quantity over quality, as long as you get the major political points (gays = bad, abortion = bad) right.
Yeah I failed that one. I also inexplicably said that the majority of people in Pakistan were hindus, which is of course silly.
I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. Education invariable involves questioning the world around you, which could lead to questioning religion and eventually to agnosticism/atheism. I'm not saying this is true in all case, only that general education can lead atheism. This could be a reason for the skew between education level and religious belief/lack-there-of.
a) believe the Bible is the most important book ever written and contains insight into the nature of the universe provided by its creator, and
b) haven't read it.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
The point of Christianity or Islam is to rack up as many faithful as possible and, ideally, convert the entire world. You can't do that if you require a lot of effort on the part of converts. Converting the entire world was never a goal of Judaism.
Rigorous Scholarship
Yeah, that's something else I like about Judaism.
Interestingly enough, Mormonism requires a lot of effort on the part of converts as well (no caffeine, no drinking, required tithing, temple work, lay ministry, etc.). But, it must be noted, that Mormonism is a religion that makes great strides to give you all the answers. In that way, it is one of the easiest religions to be a part of.
Does this happen often? If so, how does it work? Is it because religious people are confused and what answers, or is it that other non religious people challenge your beliefs? I guess it is the former right?
It's even difficult to be born into it.
Luckily the requirements have slackened a bit over the centuries.
Asking "are you an expert on Catholicism" or "are you a Catholic" are not the same question. Maybe Catholicism as the example is muddying the point here. I bet practically no one in the local Baptist church congregation could tell you what makes Baptism and Presbyterrianism different. The religion you "are" is often a matter or family or friends as well as personal spiritual beliefs. Maybe you go to church and maybe you don't. Maybe you never paid attention. Maybe the question was worded strongly enough that it made the truth seem ambiguous to many Catholics depending on their interpretation and local priest practices.
In my expereince, and this is purely anecdotal, I often find that I have to defend my lack of beliefs. I do, however, live smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt. Kalkino, again just my experience, is right in that regard. The cultural standard has been broken, therefore you must defend that choice. I don't devulge my atheism in casual conversation unless prompted, so it's really them doing the probing. Almost invariably, the first quest is "Well, can you prove God doesn't exist?" and having to explain why that isn't the right question to ask is both frustrating and exhausting.
Not sure what you're asking me?
I'm a pretty non-militant atheist(to a point where the only thing I get worked up about is the relationship between religion and children), but it does happen that a new acquaintance would try and start a conversation on the topic(specifically targeted at myself or another present atheist), and in most case (s)he wouldn't be inviting a debate, but lecturing from a position of spiritual superiority while not being familiar with the dogmas of his/hers own religion.
So, my point was that if one is an atheist, having at least a slightly above average knowledge about the dominant religion in the place you live is kind of useful.
Claiming you are a religion you don't really believe in is a stupid thing to do.
You're creating a strawman here. YoAgain, the questions in the survey don't require theological doctorals. These are questions like "Where was Jesus born?" and "Does the bread actually turn into flash?" These are very simple questions with multiple choice answers provided.
But when I lived in Michigan, religion was a pretty big deal. Every Wednesday was Bible study night for many of my friends and a lot of my classmates belonged to religious youth groups. Other places, such as small towns in the South and Utah, are probably even more religiously-oriented. If you were openly atheist in those places, you were kind of an odd duck.
Rigorous Scholarship
When you live in a culture, you pick up some cultural knowledge. If you're a Muslim and you live in America, you probably know when Christmas is and have a vague idea what its about, even if you don't study Christianity at all. If you're a Christian living in America, the only way you'd pick up knowledge about Ramadan would be if you went out and specifically studied it.
I think its less that non-Christians are smarter because they have to defend their beliefs and more that non-Christians have a knowledge set that is, in American, outside the norm.
So if you're an atheist, you're going to have ideas and arguments about religion as part of your belief system and you're also going to have ideas and arguments about religion that you pick up simply by living in America. As a Christian, you'd still have those default cultural ideas and arguments, but you wouldn't be exposed to the non-mainstream concepts unless you specifically sought them out.
This is because, as a lot of people in this threa have stated, for many people religion is as much about culture and family as it is about the actual technical details of belief.
Thanks for your experience on that one. It is interesting to see how this kind of discussion comes up. Religion does come up a bit in my circles but from other directions (say the recent Papal visit) and I don't think I've ever had a discussion with anyone where I've had to justify my lack of belief to a believer as part of a social encounter, if by that we are talking about small talk with people you've just met. It would be the height of rudeness, but then London or NZ (where I'm from) are not that religious
Religion is a very loosely defined concept, there's no really useful way to argue if someone is a "real" believer.
What interests me about this is that religious commitment doesn't seem to equate to religious fundamentalism or literalism.
if anything, these statistics show that people who are more flexible and open in their belief system are more committed.
Which is a dumb way to go about it.
I'm an atheist and I participate in the festivities part of religious holidays with friends and/or family. I'm also pretty sure that I know people who actually identify as religious simply to not feel excluded in the family. Which isn't to say it's not a dumb way to go about it, I guess.
My journey to secularism involve a great deal of self-discovery, effort, and analysis. I'd guess that the number of people who converted to atheist/agnostic on a whim is very limited. You don't just disavow everything you've been brought up believing (especially when that belief involves going to hell for non-belief) without a lot of thought into the details of those beliefs.
On the other hand, if you were raised with a belief in a particular religion, it really doesn't take any effort at all to just go through life with a vague understanding and acceptance of your particular religion's basis. In a lot of ways, this is actually the easiest path because you get the sociological and psychological benefits of being able to self-identify with a large group of (supposedly) like-minded people without all the soul searching.
The onus is on the individual to give a shit. Friends and family is ultimately irrelevant to what you truly believe, and your only lying to yourself if you let outside forces tell you what you believe in. The only time that happens is under threat of violence and persecution.
This study tells me that people who are open minded and curious about the world around them, religious or not, are better then people who follow a religion to the letter and skew their mind to that way of thinking and thus suffer for it.