Survey: Atheists Most Knowledgeable on Religion

[Liberty]

It looks like a lot of you guys didn't know the last question. It was the most specific, I think.

As to the question of whether it was an Ameri-centric question - the first great awakening took place in both America and Great Britain.

First great awakening: 1730s and 1740s
Second great awakening: 1800-1840

Of the three options, one was an evangelist associated with the first great awakening, one was an evangelist associated with the second great awakening, and one was a more modern evangelist associated with what some call the fourth great awakening.

Each of these awakenings was evangelical, feelings based, and trans-denominational; this I think is the most important thing to know about them, at least in terms of their influence on American religion.

[Kanastrous]

Sort of like species-jumping, omni-infectious pathogens, as it were.

[JediToren]

The 15 question quiz wasn't very impressive. I don't really see how the question about Pakistan's majority religion or questions on the Bible in the classroom were related to questions about who Job or Moses were. I would have loved to see the 32 question survey instead.

Personally I have always wanted to know how many Bible-believing Christians have actually read the Bible.

[General Zod]

The 15 question quiz wasn't very impressive. I don't really see how the question about Pakistan's majority religion or questions on the Bible in the classroom were related to questions about who Job or Moses were. I would have loved to see the 32 question survey instead.

Personally I have always wanted to know how many Bible-believing Christians have actually read the Bible.

That's because it's a general religious questionnaire, not a questionnaire about how much you know about the Bible.

[Kanastrous]

Personally I have always wanted to know how many Bible-believing Christians have actually read the Bible.

In my personal and therefore anecdotal experience - relatively few. I lose count of the number of occasions upon which I have trotted out this or that chunk of Scripture or bit of Church history as part of a conversation and been met with a blank stare: What? That's in the Bible/That happened? I don't know...I'll have to look that up.

Which opens the question, how can you really be an (any book)-believing follower when you haven't read the fucking book in which you supposedly believe?

[Serafina]

Which opens the question, how can you really be an (any book)-believing follower when you haven't read the fucking book in which you supposedly believe?

Simple: People told you what's (supposedly) in there, and you believe it.

[Liberty]

Personally I have always wanted to know how many Bible-believing Christians have actually read the Bible.

In my personal and therefore anecdotal experience - relatively few. I lose count of the number of occasions upon which I have trotted out this or that chunk of Scripture or bit of Church history as part of a conversation and been met with a blank stare: What? That's in the Bible/That happened? I don't know...I'll have to look that up.

Which opens the question, how can you really be an (any book)-believing follower when you haven't read the fucking book in which you supposedly believe?

And in my personal and therefore anecdotal experience - all. The fundamentalists among whom I was raised had all read the Bible through multiple times. I read it through three times before I graduated high school. My parents' church had programs to read it through in a year, and for my Bible club I had to read it through over the course of high school. They all knew their Bible, and knew it well.

I had thought this was typical among "Bible believing" protestants until reading the remarks of some people on this forum. So I'm curious; could it have to do with income level? The fundamentalists among whom I was raised all had at least some college, and most had bachelor's degrees. Perhaps well educated "Bible believing" protestants know their Bibles, and uneducated hick "Bible believing" protestants don't? This is just a guess, but I really am curious what makes the difference.

[Spoonist]

I would have loved to see the 32 question survey instead.

Uhm, did you miss the other link I provided? Its all there at the pew, although not in one place and its sort of like Jeapordy you get the answers and gotta guess the question.


edit to avoid double post

-liberty

Nope, over here all the upperclass bible thumpers haven't opened the book.

[Mayabird]

Liberty, I have a suspicion that it's at least partly because your family was, sorta, converts. They weren't born into the fundamentalism but joined into it consciously when they were older and involved with the home-schooling. Converts are always more serious about their religion than people who are born into it a few generations in. By then it's just an assumption and treated as tradition, including the teachings, which may or may not (as in the case of my entire goddamned childhood, pun intended) have anything to do with the actual precepts of their religion.

[Liberty]

Liberty, I have a suspicion that it's at least partly because your family was, sorta, converts. They weren't born into the fundamentalism but joined into it consciously when they were older and involved with the home-schooling. Converts are always more serious about their religion than people who are born into it a few generations in. By then it's just an assumption and treated as tradition, including the teachings, which may or may not (as in the case of my entire goddamned childhood, pun intended) have anything to do with the actual precepts of their religion.

I get that, but it wasn't just my parents, it was everyone I associated with in our church, our homeschool groups, friends of my parents, etc. So we're talking a lot of people. And they all knew their Bibles. Bible club (we competed with other churches, memorizing verses, learning the Bible stories, etc - we're talking hard core), Bible Study Fellowship (a weekly program for women, which is fairly intensive), our church had lots of classes, my parents' pastor preached directly from the Bible each week, explaining what was in it and preaching through different books of the Bible. Everyone in our church was deeply encouraged to spend time reading the Bible every morning, and everyone I knew did, even the kids. I memorized hundreds of Bible verses, and so did my friends and siblings. Everyone I knew knew their Bibles.

So what gives? I really don't understand what the difference is. If my upbringing was really that abnormal, there's an evangelical Christian subculture in the city where I grew up that is incredibly different from anywhere else. I'm genuinely not sure what is going on here.

[Mayabird]

No idea. I can never tell just how abnormal the stuff I grew up with was. I remember one vicious argument (I won't call it a debate) between Baptists and Methodists about whose baptismal method is better, with Methodists saying it doesn't freaking matter because it's all symbolic anyway and Baptists saying that it doesn't count if the people aren't dunked and God will send people to hell if they don't follow all the stupid rules blindly. Apparently in most places in this country, including other shitty areas, this is just unimaginable stupidity. *shrugs*

...although Broomstick often brings up her mostly illiterate in-laws about this time, people of a tradition where no one can read anything (much less the Bible) at all, no one cares to learn to read, and so are about as knowledgeable on what's in the book as those kids in Pakistani madrassas who memorize the Koran in Arabic while never actually learning Arabic.

[Liberty]

I remember one vicious argument (I won't call it a debate) between Baptists and Methodists about whose baptismal method is better, with Methodists saying it doesn't freaking matter because it's all symbolic anyway and Baptists saying that it doesn't count if the people aren't dunked and God will send people to hell if they don't follow all the stupid rules blindly. Apparently in most places in this country, including other shitty areas, this is just unimaginable stupidity. *shrugs*

Now that actually sounds normal.

[Kanastrous]

I'm afraid Liberty is probably correct; in most of the square mileage of this country this is not regarded as 'unimaginable stupidity;' this is regarded as a valid, interesting, and vitally important conversation with real implications in the real world.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I remember one vicious argument (I won't call it a debate) between Baptists and Methodists about whose baptismal method is better, with Methodists saying it doesn't freaking matter because it's all symbolic anyway and Baptists saying that it doesn't count if the people aren't dunked and God will send people to hell if they don't follow all the stupid rules blindly. Apparently in most places in this country, including other shitty areas, this is just unimaginable stupidity. *shrugs*

Now that actually sounds normal.

Baptists come in every possible guise. I would still think that most Baptists are not quite so strict when it comes to following the rules, because the implications of that would be massive. It would mean that most Christians and even a very large percentage of Protestants will go to hell because they did not perform the rituals correctly. I know there are people like that in about every Evangelical Protestant church, but in my experience they are a minority. Of course this relative open-mindedness still does not extend to non-Christians and whether it extends to Catholics and Eastern Orthodox varies a lot between churches and individuals.

[Kanastrous]

I should think that some proportion of Christians would derive some degree of satisfaction from 'knowing' that practitioners in other sects are going to Hell.

Makes 'em that much more righteous themselves, by comparison, doesn't it? As long as they're not going to Hell the implications don't at first glance seem all that problematic.

[Ginger]

Which opens the question, how can you really be an (any book)-believing follower when you haven't read the fucking book in which you supposedly believe?

Simple: People told you what's (supposedly) in there, and you believe it.

Exactly, and therein lies the danger of blind faith, reliance on authority, and adherence to a mythological world view. The godbots (of whatever faith) tend not to be taught any form of critical thinking skills, so asking 'how do you know that', or 'what d'ya mean by that', or even 'what's yer source' doesn't seem to apply. What concerns me is the indication of a lack of questioning, even towards the faiths some of these proclaim they follow. Intellectual curiosity is a foundational trait of people who think and learn, the people we need most as leaders, now.
I believe that the lack of critical thinking skills demonstrated by the results of the religionists carries over into their participation in the public square and contributes to aberrations such as the tea-baggers, creaIDiots, and the pro-"life" feebs who believe a fetus should be given a SS card & voter ID in the womb. Blind followers of any stripe are a disaster affecting everything from education to the economy.
Rant over, ginger out.

[Zed]

Personally I have always wanted to know how many Bible-believing Christians have actually read the Bible.

Which opens the question, how can you really be an (any book)-believing follower when you haven't read the fucking book in which you supposedly believe?

By listening to the words of wiser men, i.e. priests. There's a reason that the Bible was on the Index.

[Liberty]

Exactly, and therein lies the danger of blind faith, reliance on authority, and adherence to a mythological world view. The godbots (of whatever faith) tend not to be taught any form of critical thinking skills, so asking 'how do you know that', or 'what d'ya mean by that', or even 'what's yer source' doesn't seem to apply. What concerns me is the indication of a lack of questioning, even towards the faiths some of these proclaim they follow. Intellectual curiosity is a foundational trait of people who think and learn, the people we need most as leaders, now.

Interestingly, my fundie parents taught me to be a critical thinker. Like, they intentionally taught me to be a critical thinker because they were so sure that they were right that they figured no matter how much their own beliefs were questioned they'd always stand up to scrutiny. Anyway, when I realized I could turn that critical thinking toward my fundamentalist beliefs, well, let's just say that kick started a two year process that resulted in me becoming an atheist. So they taught me critical thinking and it, uh, kind of backfired. The sad thing is none of my siblings have come out of it yet, despite being taught critical thinking.

[Lagmonster]

Interestingly, my fundie parents taught me to be a critical thinker. Like, they intentionally taught me to be a critical thinker because they were so sure that they were right that they figured no matter how much their own beliefs were questioned they'd always stand up to scrutiny. Anyway, when I realized I could turn that critical thinking toward my fundamentalist beliefs, well, let's just say that kick started a two year process that resulted in me becoming an atheist. So they taught me critical thinking and it, uh, kind of backfired. The sad thing is none of my siblings have come out of it yet, despite being taught critical thinking.

Lots of people can be taught critical thinking, but not everyone can be convinced to subject their childhood beliefs to close scrutiny. For many, it's the difference between being taught how to shoot, and being asked to use that training to shoot your mother.

[The Yosemite Bear]

we used to say that years of catholic private school was the most likely way to turn into at least an agnostic. Oh and at least they let me read about the alternatives ('Gita, Crowley's Law, etc were all in the school's library, so was william of Oakham (Occam's Rasor))

[Zed]

Ockham isn't an 'alternative' to Catholicism.

[The Yosemite Bear]

well they did consider him a heretic at one point, still he's one of those thinking types'

[Edi]

Got 15/15 on the sample questions. If the entire survey was questions of that level, there would have been a few that would have needed guesswork (Maimonides, probably), but mostly it would have been easy. Then again, a lot of those subjects we covered in religion class and in history throughout school. Nearly a couple of decades ago.

[Spoonist]

Hmm, checked out the actual survey;
http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topic ... nnaire.pdf

Now as a nth european I don't get why it would be interesting to know the "race" in a religious survey.

1 White
2 Black or African American
3 Asian or Asian American
4 Or some other race
N (DO NOT READ) No other race
D (DO NOT READ) Don't know
R (DO NOT READ) Refused

Its even in their result, they differ between white protestants etc.

Could someone explain that to me?

[Bakustra]

Hmm, checked out the actual survey;
http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topic ... nnaire.pdf

Now as a nth european I don't get why it would be interesting to know the "race" in a religious survey.

1 White
2 Black or African American
3 Asian or Asian American
4 Or some other race
N (DO NOT READ) No other race
D (DO NOT READ) Don't know
R (DO NOT READ) Refused

Its even in their result, they differ between white protestants etc.

Could someone explain that to me?

Historically black protestant churches are a significant and different group from mainstream protestant and evangelical protestant churches, and tend to hold different opinions and beliefs from the above two groups. So differentiating them makes sense. They also want as much data as possible to look for trends. They also tracked educational level, gender, and marital status. None of those are strictly relevant to religious knowledge, but are useful for tracking trends in the data.