Pharyngula

Posted by: catherinajtv | September 28, 2010 8:26 AM

I gave a Bible to my daughter. That's how you make atheists."

Worked for me, too. I also read the Koran at the time and decided I was not going to "rejoin" the club.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 28, 2010 8:30 AM

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

— Isaac Asimov, in 1966 (quoted in Yours, Isaac Asimov, p. 316)

Posted by: TrineBM | September 28, 2010 8:32 AM

And most atheists I know are genuinely curious about everything, also religion. We're not afraid of knowledge about life, nature, science, dreams or imaginations. It's all fascinating.

Posted by: Spiro Keat | September 28, 2010 8:34 AM

I got 100% in the quiz, do I get a free pass to heaven?

Posted by: Zeno | September 28, 2010 8:35 AM

And it's for self defense, too. One of my believing coworkers years ago (the type that puts a "Jesus Saves" sticker on his pickup truck) told me most earnestly that "Jesus never caused any harm." I said, "What about the money-changers in the temple? He beat them with a whip he made out of cord. Whether or not he was right to do so, Jesus certainly caused them harm." My coworker was flustered but still game. Okay, he said, but those people were evil-doers. Jesus never harmed the innocent. "Really? What about the swine that he stampeded over the cliff and into the sea? Were they guilty? And didn't he cause harm to the swineherders, who I'm sure didn't volunteer to have their livestock used as demon hosts?" But those were just dumb animals. "The swineherders you mean?" Of course not. "And how about the time Jesus blasted a fig tree for not bearing fruit. That's a guy with anger-management issues."

He stopped trying to convert me.

Posted by: False Prophet | September 28, 2010 8:40 AM

Not a surprise to me. I know more about the Catholic faith I was raised with than any of my friends or relatives, including all the Catholic school teachers among them. Combined with an interest in comparative religion/mythology, my atheism was all but guaranteed.

The ignorance of their own faith among Catholics is pretty astounding, but it helps explain why the faith endures: in the West at least, being a Catholic requires no real effort or sacrifice, not even learning the basic doctrine of the faith.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | September 28, 2010 8:46 AM

I say we need an atheist scandal to round this out.

Here you go.

Posted by: Free Lunch | September 28, 2010 8:54 AM

Presumably, by knowing as little as pssible, but still beleiving, this makes ones display of faith even more virtuous.

The story of Doubting Thomas at your service.

Posted by: TomNor | September 28, 2010 8:57 AM

I am another data point. My parents are very religious, and so was I until I started to actually read the Bible. After quite a lot of "Wait.. what?" "That makes no sense" and "This God-guy... not a nice bloke, is he?" I finally managed to admit to myself that I was an unbeliever.

The knowledge I got from reading the whole thing stuck, though. Makes for some weird discussions with my uncle (he's a priest).

Posted by: te24hours | September 28, 2010 8:59 AM

The days of the gentleman religious scholar do indeed seem to be long gone, with perhaps the exception of a few Upper West Side rabbis who concentrate primarily on the law.

The line about giving a bible, I wonder how true that would be for any book? I mean, if you hand someone a book full of magic when they are a very intelligent child, and tell them: this is a true story that happened a long time ago, I suspect you will end up with a lot of very intelligent believers. If you hand them the same book, and tell them: this is a dusty old book full of lies that for some reason a lot of people think is true, I suspect you will end up with a lot of intelligent atheists. Of course, it won't be a perfect correlation, and I think the overall favorability would be towards agnosticism or atheism.

But overall, it's less about the magic book and more about the relationship between the child and the person giving them the book, I imagine.

Posted by: jebus-is-my-dog | September 28, 2010 9:01 AM

It's also here.

Posted by: Free Lunch | September 28, 2010 9:07 AM

But overall, it's less about the magic book and more about the relationship between the child and the person giving them the book, I imagine.

I doubt it. Like many atheists, I grew up in a solidly religious household and had a good education in religion. It's the child who has learned to ask honest questions because he has learned critical thinking who concludes that the whole operation is bogus. There are many very smart people selling religion. There always have been. There are likely to be in the future. Everyone who has been taught religion as a child will have to undo it by herself once she has learned how to question what she has been taught.

Posted by: dangeraardvark | September 28, 2010 9:15 AM

I was wondering when PZ would get around to commenting on this.

It was worth the wait.

Posted by: lawnerd | September 28, 2010 9:23 AM

@ 14

Yeah, ok. Wearing sneakers with a pinstripe suit is a crime against humanity. We might need to up the atheist's style quota. Crocoduck ties (worn far too short by PZ), mismatched shoes, wearing the same black short-sleeve button down matched with light blue jeans to every early interview (Sam Harris), and daring to wear a black buttoned down with a brown suede sports coat (again, Sam Harris)...it looks like we're in for a hard time with the fashion police.

Posted by: windy | September 28, 2010 9:27 AM

I said, "What about the money-changers in the temple? He beat them with a whip he made out of cord. Whether or not he was right to do so, Jesus certainly caused them harm." My coworker was flustered but still game. Okay, he said, but those people were evil-doers.

Right... if Jesus was so set against selling livestock and changing money in the temple, did he forget that it was he (as his dad) who had demanded animal sacrifice in the first place?

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 28, 2010 9:30 AM

The most salient point about Shook's article that I haven't seen commented on anywhere (except in my own blog) yet: The entire thing provides precisely zero examples of who he's talking about. He never once names a single representative member of the group of "proudly ignorant" atheists that he's attacking.

Posted by: Free Lunch | September 28, 2010 9:32 AM

if Jesus was so set against selling livestock and changing money in the temple, did he forget that it was he (as his dad) who had demanded animal sacrifice in the first place?

He hadn't gone to B-school and didn't know what a profit center was.

Posted by: Quodlibet | September 28, 2010 9:34 AM

We raised our daughter to think for herself. Her dad and I are both atheists, but we did not require her to adopt our way of thinking. Instead, we tried our best to show her how to think critically about what she saw and heard -- including advertising, news, religion, and everything she was taught in school. She came to her own conclusions and declared herself an atheist at around age 12 (she is now 17). I was very proud of her this summer when she decided -- on her own initiative -- that she needed to read/study the bibble in order to be able to respond to her classmates who think she is ignorant and somehow benighted in her atheism. She came away from her studies with a l-o-n-g list of inconsistencies and cruelties, as well as an abhorrence of the violence, misogyny, bigotry, and general hatefulness of the whole mess. I doubt that many of her "friends" who criticize her atheism have read the bibble as closely as she has. Just this morning she expressed her impatience and disdain for religious people who pick and choose from the bibble to construct a set of "values" that the rest of us are supposed to embrace. I am very proud of her. BTW, she reads Pharyngula every day. We enjoy the exchange of ideas here -- it's great fodder for discussions at our house. :-)

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | September 28, 2010 9:41 AM

That questionnaire is really pretty lame - there are fewer than 20 questions about actual religion, and the only semi-obscure one asks about the Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Finney (I got that one wrong, bad atheist that I am - protestant sects have never been my thing*). The idea that any Catholic can get through the education required for first communion and not know about transubstantiation, or that anyone should have trouble figuring out what the majority religion in Pakistan is - this is alarming.

Apparently it's not just science education that's doing badly in the US.

**sigh**

Now off to hear Richard Dawkins and Neil DeGrasse Tyson speak and to practice being strident.

Posted by: Cliff Hendroval | September 28, 2010 9:43 AM

CNN is doing a bit about this right now headlined "Atheists Ace Religion Test". Since I'm at work right now, I can't stand in the lobby and watch the whole report.

Posted by: Quodlibet | September 28, 2010 9:47 AM

Well, I just took a look at the survey instrument:

http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Belief_and_Practices/religious-knowledge-questionnaire.pdf

I think it's telling that dozens of questions are required to identify the religion, sect, church type, etc., of those respondents who identify themselves as religious. It's dizzying! It's ironic that a concept ['god'] that should unify would be do divisive and fragmenting.

Posted by: undularbore | September 28, 2010 9:54 AM

Took the quiz too, got two wrong. Darn it! One was about the 10 commandments and I've really tried hard to forget them all.

I even went to Catholic school for 4 years (but raised a Lutheran). My favorite thing about going to Catholic school? Stealing the plastic rosaries, I had quite a collection, yellow, green, lavender, white. All that religion at an early age made me think and ask uncomfortable questions to my teachers. It was fun except for being told to be quiet and don't ask any more questions.

@4, thanks for posting Isaac's quote.

Posted by: Sastra | September 28, 2010 9:55 AM

In John Shook's article, he states:

Christian theology has come a long way since St. Thomas Aquinas. Under stress from modern science and Enlightenment philosophy, it has explored cosmological, ethical, emotional, and existential dimensions of religious life. Many kinds of theology have emerged, replacing a handful of traditional arguments for God with robust methods of defending religious viewpoints. There are philosophical atheists who have quietly and successfully kept pace.

It seems to me that the odd thing about this passage is the juxtaposition between talking about "dimensions of religious life" and "methods of defending religious viewpoints." What, is theology no longer about coming up with arguments designed to convince skeptics? Is it now all about explaining why it's okay to believe -- given that you either already do, or want to?

Shook is trying to sell a book on how to answer arguments for God. According to him, there are 5 ways of arguing for God:

Theology From The Scripture (can we trust its accounts of Jesus?); Theology From The World (should we supplement science with acts of God?); Theology Beyond The World (does cosmology need supernaturalism to explain the universe?); Theology In The Know (placing religious certainties before any other knowledge); and Theology Into The Myst (letting religious experiences of God take priority over creeds).

Haven't the gnu atheists dealt extensively with all these areas? As MiketheInfidel points out in #32, Shook provides no specific examples of gnu atheists ignoring any specific arguments. Like theology, it's all very vague. These categories look like the same damn "handful of traditional arguments for God" that have been used, over and over, since time immemorial.

So I'm left wondering what sorts of "dimensions of religious life" Shook thinks theology has robustly managed to defend. Especially since I suspect that the results of this survey will not shake Shook in the least. That's not the level of sophistication he meant, you see.

Sometimes I think that the critics of gnu atheism all personally know a handful of annoying village atheists, and are really just addressing them.

Posted by: SeeDubya | September 28, 2010 10:04 AM

I have a proposal for Mr. Shook. If you commission a survey with questions that reflect knowledge you think is to be found in your book and the survey shows that theists perform better than atheists, I’ll buy your book. Otherwise no sale.

Posted by: lorenzo.benito | September 28, 2010 10:09 AM

Mattir wrote:

That questionnaire is really pretty lame - there are fewer than 20 questions about actual religion

If you are referring to the one that you can access from thr NYTimes website, that is just a sampling of the questions asked in the Pew Survey. Ostensibly, the real survey was more in-depth.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | September 28, 2010 10:12 AM

Anyone consider the effects of privilege?

If you're a Christian in the US, you never have to defend yourself. You don't even have to be aware of your "Christianity" -- by default, that's your position. An atheist on the other hand must be aware of Christian positions to defend themselves, just as a black American must be much more conscious of white American culture than a white American.

Many atheists are atheists not primarily by choice, but because they were raised in non-religious households. They didn't go to atheism because of education, but went to education to defend their atheism. Note that two other religious minorities scored well on the survey -- Jews & Mormons.

Posted by: MosesZD | September 28, 2010 10:21 AM

10/10 and the apologists can kiss my ass.

Posted by: Don | September 28, 2010 10:23 AM

I like it. Trouble is, those dingbat Mormons do nearly as well as we do. Kinda takes the shine off...

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | September 28, 2010 10:27 AM

Re:

Many atheists are atheists not primarily by choice, but because they were raised in non-religious households. They didn't go to atheism because of education, but went to education to defend their atheism.

(Anal fact check mode on...)

Citation? CNN's story on this quotes a guy says three of four were raised as Christians.

(Anal fact check mode off...)

(/As to the privilege thing, this strikes me as probably true, but also kinda more obvious a potential interpretation than I'd have bothered pointing out, myself, even with my fond habit of stating the obvious. But to each their own.)

Posted by: Quodlibet | September 28, 2010 10:32 AM

I just re-read the NYTimes article, and reviewed all the questions on the survey. (It's several pages long -- far more than 6 questions! Go to the link shown above to see the whole thing.)

I think it's important to understand that this survey really measures knowledge about religious history and law, not faith and beliefs. I can't re-check it now (Pew server too busy), but I recall only one question about belief, and that had to do with the Catholic notion of transubstantiation (coincidentally, that was the notion that pushed me over the brink into atheism, at age 12, and I wasn't even raised Catholic).

I would like to see a similar survey that would measure general understanding of the tenets of various religions. For example, relatively few people know that the 'god' of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is the same god, and it's that sort of ignorance that leads to religious wars (ancient and modern) and stupid attitudes.

Too bad the Pew survey didn't include questions like, "Have you ever read the holy book of your religion? How recently? Did you understand it? Did you believe it all? Do you follow faithfully all the instructions/laws/ideas spelled out in your hold book? Has your understanding of, or your adherence to, this book, changed during your lifetime? Why?" Now THAT would be interesting.

Posted by: steve | September 28, 2010 10:37 AM

@ lawnerd

You know at the rate we're going someone is going to have to find something that atheists do worse than the general population.

We don't believe the truth value of random propositions (i.e. jebus died to save me from sins I didn't commit) without evidence.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | September 28, 2010 10:48 AM

Trouble is, those dingbat Mormons do nearly as well as we do. Kinda takes the shine off...

Yeah, but we know about other things, too.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 28, 2010 10:54 AM

Naturally we almost always know more about creationism than the creationists do, as well.

It's always annoying that the religious generally think that we don't know creationism, religion, etc. But that goes back to the fact that the religious are almost invariably told that unbelievers either "don't know the truth" and are thus dupes, or do know, yet simply want to deny it because they are evil.

Part of that, however, is the tacit admission that some unbelievers do know religion rather well, something that has more or less always been too apparent to fully deny. In the practical sense, though, the default is that the unbeliever really doesn't know much about religion, because the religionist is typically fairly certain that the religionists' gullibility (not known as such by themselves, of course) has resulted in profound knowledge.

Above all, most can't imagine being wrong, so the unbeliever must surely be unknowing or evil. The evil generally wouldn't "read the Bible" (or whatever), and the unknowing must not have done so. Any honest person who studied the Bible would believe in God/Jesus, of course, meaning that the unbeliever is either not honest or doesn't know.

The mere fact that most vocal atheists have indeed honestly found fault, through the kind of informed study that the believer can't imagine, just isn't something the average religionist has ever considered.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Flea | September 28, 2010 11:01 AM

Lately, a certain faction within CFI ... has taken it upon itself to slam the Gnu Atheists as a gang of crude...

Posted by: cervantes | September 28, 2010 11:04 AM

Having printed copies of holy books does not make you more knowledgeable or at all knowledgeable. You have to read them and you can read holy books without having printed copies in your possession.

What is it you're getting at?

Duhh. If you're going to read them anyway, what's the point of destroying them? It only sends a message that you don't intend to read them. It says that destroying books is an appropriate response when you don't agree with what's in them. That's a bad message to send, and therefore I felt that PZ's act had no positive point and seemed to be sinking to the level of idiots. If he's still planning to read them (or at least refer to them on occasion), what is gained by destroying them?

Posted by: David Marjanović | September 28, 2010 11:07 AM

The ignorance of their own faith among Catholics is pretty astounding

Not really, because the transubstantiation is just too absurd to imagine. I (raised Catholic) never believed in it, and when I found out what the official church doctrine was, I simply thought the church had misunderstood it. That was maybe 10 years before my faith started to fade away.

What is astounding is Protestants not knowing about Luther. A majority? WTF.

The line about giving a bible, I wonder how true that would be for any book? I mean, if you hand someone a book full of magic when they are a very intelligent child, and tell them: this is a true story that happened a long time ago, I suspect you will end up with a lot of very intelligent believers. If you hand them the same book, and tell them: this is a dusty old book full of lies that for some reason a lot of people think is true, I suspect you will end up with a lot of intelligent atheists.

Nah. You're probably new to this blog. There are lots of deconversion stories that involve a bookish little believer taking a Bible, reading, and deconverting. I know someone who had the usual fight with his mother every Sunday about going to Mass when he was a teenager – he didn't want to go because it was so boring. (It's always the same. No matter how fervently you believe, it gets tedious pretty quickly.) Eventually they agreed that he'd stay at home and would read the Bible instead going to church. When he had finished reading, he closed the book and didn't believe anymore. The closest he ever gets to religion is a deist moment here and there.

Shook is trying to sell a book on how to answer arguments for God. According to him, there are 5 ways of arguing for God:

Theology From The Scripture (can we trust its accounts of Jesus?); Theology From The World (should we supplement science with acts of God?); Theology Beyond The World (does cosmology need supernaturalism to explain the universe?); Theology In The Know (placing religious certainties before any other knowledge); and Theology Into The Myst (letting religious experiences of God take priority over creeds).

Haven't the gnu atheists dealt extensively with all these areas?

Of course. Gnu atheist answer to 1: "nope, no evidence, glaring absence of evidence outside scripture, contradictions within scripture"; 2 and 3: "Sire, je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là" (...the beginning of the 19th century: the mythical past when men were men, sheep were afraid, and New Atheism was new); 4: "nope, all that's falsifiable has been falsified, and the rest is useless"; 5: "who cares, brain glitches and creeds are equally wrong".

All the religions I have studied claim to have the answers to the same set of questions, but all of their competing supernatural explanations are equally devoid of any meaningful content. The reason you can explain the same phenomena by invoking Zeus or Yahweh is that neither answer really tells you anything, it just applies a veneer of agency to what is still an unknown. Accepting supernatural explanations is like thinking X is not a placeholder, but the actual answer to an algebra problem. Religion answers everything by explaining nothing. Majoring in religion really drove that home for me.

Into my quote folder. The x metaphor is simply awesome.

For example, relatively few people know that the 'god' of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is the same god, and it's that sort of ignorance that leads to religious wars (ancient and modern) and stupid attitudes.

Nope. If you worship the right god in a wrong way, ascribing shockingly wrong things to him, that's at least as horrible to fundamentalist believers as worshipping the wrong god in the first place. Heretics have usually been persecuted at least as hard as outright infidels.

Posted by: mmelliott01 | September 28, 2010 11:10 AM

You know at the rate we're going someone is going to have to find something that atheists do worse than the general population.

We are really bad at sports, because we don't receive God's Blessing in the huddle before each play. Even in sports that don't have huddles. Or plays.

Posted by: pinkboi | September 28, 2010 11:12 AM

This makes Dennett's idea to teach world religions in primary school all the more appealing... I've always suspected, however, and been glad that the designs of evangelists on peoples' minds is at least curtailed by their clumsy notion that handing out bibles will actually help their cause.

Also, speaking of Dennett and Atheists knowing more about religion than most believers, the study he did on unbelieving preachers is pretty revealing - seminary shakes peoples' faith. Is peoples' shallow religiosity making the final blows to their faith harder to come by or does it make their faith wither and die more quickly?

Posted by: pinkboi | September 28, 2010 11:14 AM

Ugh. People's, not peoples' (the latter would be if I were speaking of a nation, ethnic group, etc.)

Posted by: David Marjanović | September 28, 2010 11:16 AM

If he's still planning to read them (or at least refer to them on occasion), what is gained by destroying them?

A really nice YouTube video.

:-)

So let us hear no more about heresy tests in the middle of the culture wars.

But... but there are TWO SPECIES OF GNU, the wildebeest and the hartebeest !! I declare deep rifts!

;-)

Posted by: ButchKitties | September 28, 2010 11:17 AM

What is astounding is Protestants not knowing about Luther. A majority? WTF.

If I were a Protestant minister, I sure wouldn't want members of my church studying Luther. The only thing he hated more than the selling of indulgences was the Jewish population. I wouldn't want them to know the holy author of the 95 Theses also wrote charming treatises such as On Jews And Their Lies.

Posted by: Prospect151 | September 28, 2010 11:19 AM

I'm definitely blogging about this pew survey. I'd love it if any of you would read it later when I'm done!

It's good news. I kinda realized last year around christmas that I'm getting up on religious knowledge just from listening to the conversations amongst the debators - for instance that I knew the story of Jephthah. cool.
SA

Posted by: Schenck | September 28, 2010 11:24 AM

Did I misread the article? Because it says that atheists were /not/ the most informed about christianity and the bible, they were the most informed about questions covering all religions. So, fwiw, the article does /not/ say that atheists know more about the bible than Evangelicals and the like.

Posted by: skeptical scientist | September 28, 2010 11:27 AM

Is the full 32 question quiz online anywhere? All I found was the 6 question quiz on NYTimes, the 10 question quiz on CNN, and the 15 question quiz on pewforum, which seems to be having issues.

Posted by: Epinephrine | September 28, 2010 11:33 AM

Cervantes @70:

Duhh. If you're going to read them anyway, what's the point of destroying them?

Symbolism? Saving shelf space? Helping the carbon cycle? Take your pick.

It only sends a message that you don't intend to read them.

Or that you don't respect them.

It says that destroying books is an appropriate response when you don't agree with what's in them. That's a bad message to send

Why?

, and therefore I felt that PZ's act had no positive point and seemed to be sinking to the level of idiots. If he's still planning to read them (or at least refer to them on occasion), what is gained by destroying them?

Again, shelf space. A sense of pride in having thrown off the shackles of bibliophilia.

Look, I like books. I tend to bring mine to the school book fairs, or donate them to libraries rather than throw them out. I horde my books, double shelving them rather than have to stop collecting them. My friends hate helping me move. I have numerous electronic books, often duplicating what I have on my shelves (they are much more portable), but I still keep the physical copies as there is something to holding a book. My e-reader gives me text, but a book is more than that - more even than the tactile; the wear on the book that I've lent out to numerous friends is a visible indicator of how many have enjoyed that volume. There is something wonderful about how humans have invented a way of passing on information, and in the art that grew from the medium of the written word. I doubt that I am any less romantic about the books I love than you are.

But when it comes down to it, they are paper and ink, and if I don't like one, I can get rid of it however I want. I refuse to elevate the object beyond what it is - yes, books as a whole are wonderful, but a given copy of a given book is simply an object.

Posted by: raven | September 28, 2010 11:39 AM

The churches go out of their way to hide the bible and some of their stranger dogmas.

I went to Sunday school for years and learned absolutely nothing but bits and pieces. The fact that the bible is an incoherent mess of genocide, slavery, sex, and pointless morality was something that came later.

Our church was offically Calvinist. Never heard one word about Calvin (a nutcase like Luther), Calvinism, or predestination. My impression is that everyone from the theologians down to the ministers thought it was nonsense and hoped no one ever asked.

Posted by: Free Lunch | September 28, 2010 11:42 AM

Epi-

I've finally gotten around to actually throwing some books in the recycling bin. Sure, they're manuals for software from the '90s. They have been obsolete for a decade. Any collectors will thank me for making their copy increase in value from 2¢ to 3¢.

If I get rid of 200 other books that are of no value to me (either by donating to the library or recycling), I will finally be able to start getting rid of books that are of minuscule value to me. Of course these will be more than replaced.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 28, 2010 11:47 AM

Lots of believers can come up with material from the(ir) Bibles on a range of subjects, but few know the relevant context.

F'rinstance, I'm presently reading Israel Finkelstein & Neil Asher Silberman's David and Solomon: In Search of the Roots of the Western Tradition; have recently finished re-reading Richard Elliott Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible; and have Bart D. Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted cued up (after having heard him give a series of three lectures). (All these authors are highly recommended, btw - what they say about the Judeo-Christeo bible is more meaningful than anything in it.)

Can anyone here recommend similar reading about the Quran? (Something more organized and focused than Ibn Warraq's anthologies What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text & Commentary and The Quest for the Historical Muhammad, that is...)

Posted by: Tulse | September 28, 2010 11:57 AM

it says that atheists were /not/ the most informed about christianity and the bible, they were the most informed about questions covering all religions. So, fwiw, the article does /not/ say that atheists know more about the bible than Evangelicals and the like

The survey says that atheist scored better on the questions related to the Christian faith than did any groups apart from Evangelical Christians and Mormons (and that includes better than various other subsets of Christian believers).

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893 | September 28, 2010 11:59 AM

My favorite reference is still Skeptics Annotated Bible, but I have to admit some bias here, because SAB is what originally brought me to Pharyngula.

But I like the way Wells gets straight to the core of the Bible's (many, many) problems. The forums are fun, too.

MikeM

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893 | September 28, 2010 12:13 PM

By the way, aren't the people who are scoring so poorly on quizzes that they should do well on the very same people who'd just love to take over all public schools in this country?

This quiz should be given to members of the Texas Board of Education.

Posted by: raven | September 28, 2010 12:16 PM

Was reading about early xian history last night on the web. Virtually all of it is unknown to virtually all xians. It is pretty grim.

1. The persecutions of xians by the Romans never occurred like they say it did. There was probably some for sure but the numbers were wildly inflated by the RCC historians at the time. Rewriting history is an ancient xian pastime that happens even today with our Deist national founders morphing into Southern Baptists.

2. The takeover of the Roman empire was pretty bloody. The Pagans were massacred for centuries. Some groups were so efficiently genocided that they ceased to exist. It makes the Moslem takeovers of the ME look routine.

3. A huge amount of the fighting in the early church was between xian factions. The Arian heresy was suppressed by bloodshed and took centuries.

Posted by: masturbating monkey | September 28, 2010 12:20 PM

I've thrown poo at CFI in the past about post on their website which apparently they do not like to take responsibility for. Same tired story, it's just their opinion, it's not the stance of the CFI, blah blah, there's pee in my blood, blah blah.

These guys fail even the basics of PR and Op-Ed. They act like it's perfectly ok for their directors to alienate their core audience on their own homepage. And act as if they would be crushing freedom of expression if they didn't allow it. Fuck that, you have an organization with a specific mission, and you're letting directors (why they're directors I don't know) of your organization pile up steaming piles of poo on it's face. If they want to express opinions that contradict the organization's mission and continue to write crap that would alienate their supporters then they can go to any number of public webblog hosts and start spewing their drivel there.

And the whole "we trying to challenge you so you grow" BS is just that… BS.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 28, 2010 12:22 PM

They're trying to challenge US to grow. The theists who are very very very set in their ways they seem to see no hope of growth and thus have settled on "humoring".

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | September 28, 2010 12:27 PM

strident atheism is apparently "Sharing your opinion". It pisses me off how these scientists and skeptics apparently insist on treating theists like fucking infants. Apparently we don't want to make the baby cry, they couldn't take it. Why do they have a lower opinion on theists than seemingly the vocal atheists?

I'm going to also say that as a former Christian I would be pissed if people like the ACA or others had not made their videos and spread education. If i had known well educated skeptical intellectuals intentionally created an illusion of "it's intellectually sound to believe in God" I'd be mad. The people who foster this are being deceptive. They are lying, and I'm more upset at them than the theists who reinforced my beliefs.

I had questions about god from an early age, but went along with theism due I believe largely to a culture that seemed to justify belief. I call this phenomena "Contemporary insanity"

Posted by: skeptical scientist | September 28, 2010 12:32 PM

I found the full quiz at http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Belief_and_Practices/religious-knowledge-topline.pdf, which also includes all the instructions for the interviewer, demographic questions, results for each question, and some non-religious knowledge questions mixed in with the religious knowledge questions. I've distilled just the questions of religious knowledge:

1. When does the Jewish Sabbath begin? Does it begin on...?
a. Friday
b. Saturday
c. Sunday

2. Is Ramadan…?
a. The Hindu festival of lights
b. A Jewish day of atonement
c. The Islamic holy month

3. Do you happen to know which of these is the king of gods in ancient Greek mythology
a. Zeus
b. Mars
c. Apollo

4. Do you happen to know the name of the holy book of Islam?

5. Which of these religions aims at nirvana, the state of being free from suffering?
a. Islam
b. Buddhism
c. Hinduism

6. In which religion are Vishnu and Shiva central figures?
a. Islam
b. Hinduism
c. Taoism

7. Is an atheist…?
a. someone who believes in God
b. someone who does NOT believe in God, or
c. someone who is unsure whether God exists?

8. And is an agnostic…?
a. someone who believes in God
b. someone who does NOT believe in God, or
c. someone who is unsure whether God exists?

9. What is the first book of the Bible?

10. Will you tell me the names of the first four books of the New Testament of the Bible, that is the Four Gospels?

11. Where, according to the Bible, was Jesus born?
a. Bethlehem
b. Jericho
c. Jerusalem
d. Nazareth

12. When was the Mormon religion founded?
a. Before the year 1200 A.D.
b. Between 1200 and 1800
c. Sometime after 1800

13. The Book of Mormon tells the story of Jesus Christ appearing to people in what area of the world?
a. the Americas
b. Middle East
c. Asia

14. Which of the following best describes Catholic teaching about the bread and wine used for Communion?
a. The bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ, or
b. The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ
c. Other

15. Which of these religious groups traditionally teaches that salvation comes through faith alone?
a. Protestants only
b. Catholics only
c. Both Protestants and Catholics
d. Neither Protestants nor Catholics

16. Please tell me which of the following is NOT one of the Ten Commandments:
a. Do not commit adultery
b. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
c. Do not steal
d. Keep the Sabbath holy
e. All are in the Ten Commandments

17. Which Bible figure is most closely associated with remaining obedient to God despite suffering?
a. Job
b. Elijah
c. Moses
d. Abraham

18. Which Bible figure is most closely associated with leading the exodus from Egypt?
a. Job
b. Elijah
c. Moses
d. Abraham

19. Which Bible figure is most closely associated with willingness to sacrifice his son for God?
a. Job
b. Elijah
c. Moses
d. Abraham

20. Would you tell me if Mother Teresa was
a. Catholic
b. Jewish
c. Buddhist
d. Mormon'
e. Hindu
f. Other

21. Would you tell me if the Dalai Lama is
a. Catholic
b. Jewish
c. Buddhist
d. Mormon'
e. Hindu
f. Other

22. Would you tell me if Joseph Smith was
a. Catholic
b. Jewish
c. Buddhist
d. Mormon'
e. Hindu
f. Other

23. Would you tell me if Maimonodes was
a. Catholic
b. Jewish
c. Buddhist
d. Mormon'
e. Hindu
f. Other

24. Which of the following statements best describes what the U.S. Constitution (including its amendments) says about religion?
a. Christianity should be given special emphasis by the government;
b. The government shall neither establish a religion nor interfere with the practice of religion; or
c. The Constitution does not say anything one way or the other about religion.

25. According to rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, is a public school teacher permitted to lead a class in prayer?

26. According to rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, is a public school teacher permitted to read from the Bible as an example of literature?

27. According to rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, is a public school teacher permitted to offer a class comparing the world's religions?

28. Do you happen to know what religion most people in India consider themselves?
a. Buddhist
b. Hindu
c. Muslim
d. Christian

29. Do you happen to know what religion most people in Indonesia consider themselves?
a. Buddhist
b. Hindu
c. Muslim
d. Christian

30. Do you happen to know what religion most people in Pakistan consider themselves?
a. Buddhist
b. Hindu
c. Muslim
d. Christian

31. What was the name of the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation?
a. Thomas Aquinas
b. John Wesley
c. Martin Luther

32. Which of these preachers participated in the period of religious
a, Billy Graham
b. Jonathan Edwards
c. Charles Finney

Posted by: raven | September 28, 2010 12:36 PM

Luther to avoid questions (or worse: internet searches) that would expose the crazy, lets-kill-all-the-Jews version.

Yeah, Martin Luther was a real crazy one even for that time. He thought women were barely above farm animals, demons and devils were everywhere especially in the handicapped, hated reason and knowledge, and hated the Jews and drew up a Final Solution.

To this day, some Lutheran sects believe that the Catholic church is satan's church and the Pope is the Antichrist. Michele Bachmann's church, the WELS has it right on their website.

Some days, it looks like one has to be a sociopath or psychopath to be a religious leader. There are certainly enough examples such as Rushdooney, the influential theologian who founded US xian Dominionism.

Posted by: Montanto | September 28, 2010 1:08 PM

I freely admit a good chunk of my Bible study consisted of looking for good ammunition to use on street evangelists.

Posted by: bulwer | September 28, 2010 1:11 PM

"... the group that knows the most about religion are the atheists/agnostics"

I escaped 20 years of indoctrination in a Christian fundamentalist cult and know the Bible inside and out from that world-view. I am now an atheist. I discuss my recovery from the god virus through education, which inevitably led me to atheism, in the following blog post on my website:

Who is the Real Anti-Christian: the Atheist or the Fundamentalist Christian?

Perry Bulwer

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 28, 2010 1:22 PM

David Marjanović @ # 97 - Thanks for the tip on "Christoph Luxenberg". The Amazon.com reviews of The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran make it look like a book primarily for philologists (and some slam it hard on grounds of linguistic theory), so I may not add it to my pile soon.

However, the "also bought" list took me to Karl-Heinz Ohlig & Gerd-R Puin's anthology, The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into Its Early History, which does look to be the answer to my question in # 96.

Funny how the Germans seem to have led the way in scriptural debunking for the last couple of centuries, nein?

Posted by: natural cynic | September 28, 2010 1:43 PM

Ah, but you all forget that the devil is known for his ability to quote scripture. I guess that's what happens with a little book learnin'. The more you know, the less space you will have for faith. I really think that there has to be an inverse correlation for most people.

What really astounded me was how easy most of the questions were. I saw the article late last night at the Times website, went to the Pew executive summary and saw a sample of 15 questions, aced them [15/15] and thought in my proud pedant's attitude that it was extremely easy. On only two questions did I have to even stop for a moment to consider [the one about the Bible as literature in schools and the one about Edwards and the first awakening]. So many of the questions were like "Well duh, how could anyone miss that!"
A few things that I thought were interesting:
Evangelicals scored better than mainline protestants. I guess constant immersion and osmosis actually might have some benefit.
The nothing in particular group would hardly be considered atheist/agnostic. They are almost certainly consider themselves Christians, but are too lazy to do anything about it on sunday mornings, except around Christmas and Easter.
The relatively high scores of the Mormons may come from the much higher level of immersion in their religion than the average Protestant.
And, of course, the statistical fact that about half of the respondents were so clueless that they missed more than half of the questions. WTF

Posted by: onchu | September 28, 2010 2:15 PM

"...we almost always know more about our opponent's religion than he or she does."

The survey implies the opposite is true.

http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

While an atheist or agnostic is likely to know more about Buddhism than a Mormon, or Sikhism than a Muslim, the people who know the most about their own religion are the people belonging to that religion.

Posted by: Bo Gardiner | September 28, 2010 2:33 PM

@33

I think Christians outperformed atheists on the questions about Christianity. The atheists made it up on religions of the world and American law regarding religion.

Nope, we beat Christians overall even on the Bible and Christianity. Here's how I summarized it:

Nontheists (atheists and agnostics) outscored all religious groups surveyed — Christians, Mormons, Jews, and undeclared — in religious knowledge overall, according to the Pew U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey released today.

By category, nontheists and Jews scored similarly to each other, and significantly higher than all others, on knowledge of “World Religions” and “Religion in Public Life.” On the Bible and Christianity, nontheists significantly outscored Christians overall, trumped only by Mormons. When subdividing Christianity, nontheists outscored all Christian groups except evangelical.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec | September 28, 2010 2:40 PM

I think that a follow up study would be interesting about religion.

How much of religious affiliation has to do with belief systems and God and how much has to do with social identification.
How does religion function in social cohesion and identification?

My hunch is that religions main function is social and has little to do with actual existence of gods or specific religious tenets?

That might help explain the apparent effect of minority understanding mentioned above.

more questions

It also illustrates the ineffectiveness of reason when arguing religion

uncle frrogy

Posted by: bastion of sass | September 28, 2010 3:03 PM

"Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge...."

Nod. The more I learned about Catholicism, the more I realized just how crazy what I was supposed to believe was. Eventually, I left the craziness behind and embraced reality and rationality.

Posted by: Kagehi | September 28, 2010 3:28 PM

Accepting supernatural explanations is like thinking X is not a placeholder, but the actual answer to an algebra problem. Religion answers everything by explaining nothing. Majoring in religion really drove that home for me.

Into my quote folder. The x metaphor is simply awesome.

This deserves a cartoon I can't draw. Two panels, both with black boards, both with a mess of complex equations. One shows the answers, including a graph of a circle, for one of the equations, written by a scientist, the other.. has a priest grinning happily, when just these four symbols: "= God".

Posted by: TsuDhoNimh | September 28, 2010 3:54 PM

I got all but #32 correct.

Posted by: GvlGeologist, FCD | September 28, 2010 4:01 PM

Sorry, that should be:

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php\

and click on the upper right hand image.

I love S. Harris cartoons.

Posted by: GvlGeologist, FCD | September 28, 2010 4:10 PM

Damn, damn, damn.

In #136, that should be:

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery/math/index.php

Sorry.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | September 28, 2010 4:35 PM

bad for the movement

What the fuck?! Are we a cult now?

If that's their movement, I'm very very glad to have you and Coyne (for his faults) being bad for it.

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 28, 2010 4:43 PM

since you chose to assume we would think it "coincidence", which really makes no sense...

no, it's not. it also doesn't invalidate the poll's conclusions.

What's more, you're posting that on a site where the regulars commonly rip poll data to shreds, so your concern is noted.

Posted by: Sioux Laris | September 28, 2010 4:50 PM

And what will be their response to the survey?

I betting it will be a (true) Scotsman...

... on a horse.

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 28, 2010 4:52 PM

And what will be their response to the survey?

coincidentally, I think it will resemble what I just quoted in 145.

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | September 28, 2010 5:01 PM

"…And friends, they may think it's a movement. And it is. It's the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you have to do to join is sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar."

That's about how organized we seem to be. Which means we have to keep taking Arlo's advice, and sing loud.

Posted by: AnthonyK | September 28, 2010 5:08 PM

I'm curious, though, as to whether the official Church teaching really did, at one time, claim it to be a literal transformation.

This was what happened when the church was really in charge...

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI | September 28, 2010 5:23 PM

@ Tulse...actually, there was some controversy over the "actual" transubstantiation...some in the church were even going to far as to declare it to be metaphorical...

Until the Miracle of Lanciano. 8th century. A priest dropped a bit of host on the ground and apparently it "converted" to human issue...isn't that AMAZING? (Yeah right, I'm amazed.)

But one might be forgiven for not knowing that little bit of trivia. It was 1300 years ago and only the Italians seem to have any knowledge of their being in possession of bits-o-Jesus.

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | September 28, 2010 6:01 PM

Anyone consider the effects of privilege?

I was relatedly wondering what the results would be over here in Sweden, where the irreligious are more common and most believers are new age airheads rather than traditional theists. A Christian around here is likely to have to defend their faith now and then (tho less often than one might think for a minority of perhaps 20% of the population - religion, or its absence, has been more privatized here than it is in America), yet most Christians I've known haven't exactly astounded me with their Biblical knowledge.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | September 28, 2010 6:29 PM

DM ~

But... but there are TWO SPECIES OF GNU, the wildebeest and the hartebeest !!

There are two species of gnu (genus Connochaetes)*, but the hartebeest isn't one of them (it's a member of the genus Alcelaphus).

* wiki

Connochaetes includes two species, both native to Africa: the black wildebeest, or white-tailed gnu (C. gnou), and the blue wildebeest, or brindled gnu (C. taurinus).

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | September 28, 2010 6:41 PM

The original "All about gnus".

Posted by: Sastra | September 28, 2010 7:02 PM

Tulse #129 wrote:

But that answer is nonetheless clearly the "best" description of the two offered, as Catholic dogma is very clear that Holy Communion is not merely symbolic. I don't think that wording issues explain the results.

The problem is that a third option was added: "other." That "other" messes it up because, as you point out in #133, they're working with two different definitions or meanings of literal truth. There's the secular meaning of bread and wine "actually" becoming body and blood in a way that you can see, and then there's the Catholic meaning of bread and wine "actually" turning into body and blood in the way that you can't see, but it's still very literal and not symbolic.

I'd be interested in finding out whether the Catholics who got the question wrong voted for b (symbols) or c (other.)

I personally would never put in any option with "other" into any questionnaire designed to get clear answers of out religious people on what they believe. They could easily mark that one down every single time. God is just so.... numinous, you know.

Posted by: Sastra | September 28, 2010 7:14 PM

Heh. I wrote in #46:

Sometimes I think that the critics of gnu atheism all personally know a handful of annoying village atheists, and are really just addressing them.

johnshook16 then wrote in #71

Since few have noticed that my concerns were directed at a small but loud SUBSET of certain quarters of atheism, we can try again.

Okay. Let's find them. It shouldn't be hard: they're loud, but they don't engage in debates. They must be the militants we keep hearing about. Look for broken furniture in certain quarters not to be named.

But those quarters evidently aren't Pharyngula (for a change). Makes me worry about where poor John Shook has been hanging out.

Posted by: toddcaton | September 28, 2010 7:44 PM

@JohnShook16: I think the probability that you actually are the John Shook of CfI is approaching zero, but in the off chance that you are, perhaps you could explain how you expect readers to conclude from the text of your HuffPo piece that your "concerns were directed at a small but loud SUBSET of certain quarters of atheism," particularly given the very first paragraph:

Atheists are getting a reputation for being a bunch of know-nothings. They know nothing of God, and not much more about religion, and they seem proud of their ignorance.

To be fair, some of your references to atheism or atheists include qualifiers, such as "strident," "loudest," and "dogmatic" (qualifiers that, when they do occur, are overwhelmingly pejorative), but your qualifiers are also - and most notably - of the now-famous "know-nothing" variety. Your argument that your piece is intended to describe a certain subset of atheists is a bit thin, but thinner still is the central thesis of the piece itself: That the loud, strident, dogmatic, atheist "leadership" is somehow ignorant or unknowledgable of theology.

Since you don't identify this ignorant leadership, we are left to speculate who you might mean. And since you don't provide any supporting examples, there is no way to specifically refute this claim; but maybe that was your intent. If so, it certainly smacks of the same kind of unverifiable claims made by religious apologists. If not, it certainly is a glaring omission.

In any event, it is preposterous to assert that this implied (or at least inferred) atheist leadership is uninformed or ignorant, and the serendipitous release of the Pew Center data further weakens your already dubious claim. If atheists as a whole are more knowledgable about religion than the religious, it is unlikely that this shadowy atheist "leadership" are the unread, ignorant "know-nothings" you would have us believe.

Posted by: raven | September 28, 2010 8:27 PM

I took the survey. Scored 100%.

However, they're not testing religious "knowledge".

They're testing religious trivia.

That is true. Vishnu and all that basic info.

OTOH, people still didn't score all that well on what is mostly simple trivia. So, how do you think they would score on a harder test?

These surveys are expensive. They usually hone the questions beforehand so they get some coherent information out of them. They already knew xians wouldn't score well.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | September 28, 2010 9:23 PM

They're testing religious trivia.

Isn't that what theology is? Ever listen to a couple of Christians arguing about infant versus adult baptism or a couple of Jews arguing whether a golem can be a member of a minyan? It's trivia.

Posted by: Kirk | September 28, 2010 9:37 PM

"What direction should the mezuzah be tilted" is trivia.

Unless tilting the mezuzah in the wrong direction results in your being stoned to death. Then I'd put it in the knowledge category.

Maybe that's the first criteria for assigning the label of religious knowledge: arbitrary shit you can get killed for; avoid if possible.

If you think you really need some sticks for a fire on the sabbath, well, think about it again.

Posted by: Jason | September 28, 2010 10:52 PM

I got 27.25 out of 32 and I've been to church maybe 3 times in my whole life, and only then because I was invited by a girlfriend who knew I was an atheist and was trying to convert me.

Posted by: DLC | September 29, 2010 12:43 AM

Could I beg to ask, why is it necessary to know the ins and outs of religion in order to not approve?
Why do I need to be a milliner to know that the emperor has no clothes?

In comparison, no one need know the ins and outs of pedophilia in order to disapprove of it.
Nor do I need to be a skilled bank robber in order to disapprove of armed robbery.

Posted by: Anton Mates | September 29, 2010 4:35 AM

"...we almost always know more about our opponent's religion than he or she does."

The survey implies the opposite is true.

http://pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

Actually, the survey (such as it is) doesn't imply that either claim is true in general. Jews, Mormons, and white Evangelicals apparently know more than atheists/agnostics about their respective religions; Catholics and mainline/black Protestants apparently know less. Of course, the latter groups make up the bulk of American believers, so you could still say that atheists know more about the average believer's religion than the believer does.

I wonder, though, if you can really use this survey to assess "religious self-knowledge" at all. After all, believers may define their religion by the beliefs and practices of their local community. If they don't agree that some point of doctrine is traditionally held by their religion, maybe that just means that their religion is not quite what you-the-pollster thought it was.

E.g., if a Catholic denies that literal transubstantiation is part of "Catholic teaching," should we conclude that they're ignorant of Catholic teaching? Or that transubstantiation isn't a universal element of Catholic teaching, whatever the Pope may think on the matter?

Posted by: Philip Legge | September 29, 2010 4:56 AM

I saw the test results. Atheists have no room to brag, as all groups scored so badly they all ought to be ashamed of themselves.

And of course, you do go on to brag how you got a perfect score...

Posted by: Anton Mates | September 29, 2010 7:02 AM

Surely that would be religion-specific, Catholicism for example is very much a top-down dogmatic structure while for other religions don't have that or at least not to that extent.

Yeah, but that structure could itself depend on the viewpoint of the believer's local community. For instance, there are assorted independent Catholic churches which deny the authority of the Vatican, and have their own claims to apostolic succession. Catholicism as they practice it doesn't have quite the same dogma and hierarchy as it does according to, say, Pope Ratz.

Of course, the Pope would say that those churches are simply Doing Catholicism Wrong. But they'd say that he's doing it wrong. And as an outsider who doesn't think any of them are actually receiving mental downloads from God, I'm disinclined to say that either claim is more valid.

Posted by: davem | September 29, 2010 8:50 AM

Poona:

If you wish to argue against something, you must know the subject, or else you would be just another juvenile idiot on the Internet.

Ditto religion. All I need is to see that the main claims are unsustainable, and un-evidenced. I don't need to discuss the finer details of original sin, or the angelic content of a pin head, when it's as plain as my nose that Adam and Eve are myth, and that that angels don't actually exist.

Posted by: simondavis79 | September 29, 2010 10:53 AM

Start disclosure/reminder/plug:

I'm on the Advisory Board of CFI DC where btw we have a long-standing invitation to both PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne. We are hosting Sam Harris in Washington, DC at GW Lisner Auditorium on October 12: http://www.lisner.org/eventdetails.asp?id=611

End disclosure/reminder/plug

they've criticized Richard Dawkins, and I've heard that both Jerry Coyne and I were named in a recent talk as bad for the movement.

Can you clarify and expand more on the above? Was it an invited speaker who criticized, was it an audience member asking a question, etc?

From my personal point of view as someone who does membership outreach and fundraising, I would be hard-pressed to say that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Myers, et al are "bad for the movement". I think they are very good for the movement and that is why we were happy to secure as large a venue and platform as possible in June for Hitchens as well as Harris in October (at substantial expense and time commitment I might add). CFI On Campus was a co-sponsor of Richard Dawkins'/Neil De Grasse Tyson talk at Howard University and CFI DC had a table there just yesterday.

To reiterate, we'd be happy to host PZ in DC (though I know he gets a lot of invites). IMO he's long overdue for a visit to the area.

Posted by: Anton Mates | September 29, 2010 8:03 PM

There are two issues with that view. The first is that what the Pope thinks is Catholic teaching, by definition. It would be twisting the notion of Catholicism radically to say that papal authority is not final on matters of doctrine.

That's the position of the Pope, certainly. But it is not the position of the independent Catholic churches, nor of the Liberal Catholic Movement, nor of all the Catholic communities throughout history who have supported an antipope. And I think there are many more Catholics who are also skeptical of papal authority, just not enough to back a formal schism as the above communities did.

There is no universal notion of Catholicism to be twisted; there are as many concepts of Catholicism as there are Catholics. If you're trying to study how well believers know "their own" religion, I think you have to let them each provide the definition.

Second, it is not at all clear that those respondents who denied literal transubstantiation know that their view is in opposition to Catholic teaching, or that, if told so, they would persist in their belief. In other words, how many of the respondents would, if told of the official view, say "well, I guess I was simply wrong about my religion", rather than "well, the Pope is a fool, and I'm joining the Anglicans!"? I would suggest the latter number would be extremely small.

Actually, I suspect many of them would say, "Well, the Pope is a fool wrong, and I'm staying a Catholic but I'm still not going along with him on that."

This is not an unusual position for American Catholics. According to this survey, for instance, 40% of American Catholics are pro-choice and over 50% find homosexual relations morally acceptable. Even among that subset which attend church regularly, the majority condone premarital sex, divorce and stem cell research, all of which are loudly condemned by church authorities.

Furthermore, they seem fairly comfortable explicitly condemning, let alone disagreeing with, the Pope. According to another survey, 32% of American Catholics disapprove of the Pope's performance of his job, and 16% think he should actually resign. (Another 20% are undecided on the latter point.)

So I don't think these folks are simply unaware that the Vatican disapproves of abortion and homosexuality and premarital sex. They know, and disagree, and don't find this relevant to their Catholicism.

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | September 30, 2010 5:50 AM

When I first became an atheist (or when I consciously became an atheist - I had probably been one for a while without realising), I ended up reading the Bible and religious articles and appologetics far more than I had when I had been a Christian.

Initially, this was to make sure I had made the right decision, and hadn't missed some good arguments or been put off by unrepresentative fundies.

It didn't take long to realise that all the arguments were meaningless, and I reading them became more like watching a car crash orpicking at a scab (or playing logical fallacy bingo).

Posted by: Anton Mates | October 3, 2010 8:14 PM

Sure, but those are extremely minority positions (the ones that aren't minorities no longer consider themselves Catholic -- just ask the Protestants).

But they also represent the extreme of the anti-papal position we're talking about (and the Protestants even more so.) Again, as I'm sure you know, there are Catholics who disregard the Pope's position on various points, or explicitly condemn him, but don't go as far as divorcing themselves from the RCC--and they are not a tiny minority, even in the US. (Let alone in Western Europe--roughly half the self-labeled Catholics in France don't even accept the existence of a personal God.)

Ultimately the issue is how one defines a particular religious sect. I could call myself a Baptist, but if I worshipped Thor and Baal and Azathoth, I think most people would agree that such a label would be misapplied.

If you regularly worshipped them in a nominally Baptist church, with a bunch of other people who called themselves Baptists, and were apparently still in communion with a lot of other Baptists, I'd start wondering whether Baptists might be a lot weirder than I'd thought.

Regardless, though, if the question is about knowledge of one's own religion, then the only issue is how you define Baptistosity. Doesn't really matter if I or anyone else dislike your use of the label. And if I judge you not to be a true Baptist, then any clash between your claims and official Baptist doctrine would be even less relevant to that question of self-knowledge, no?

As an ex-Catholic, perhaps my view is somewhat coloured, but historically the issue of papal authority was one of the big divides in Christendom, and it seems reasonable to use that as a way of distinguishing between Catholicism and the rest of non-Catholic Christianity.

I think that makes a lot of sense at the level of state and church politics (which is mostly where the question of papal authority was relevant), but it seems less helpful for distinguishing between individual Catholics and individual non-Catholics; over most of history, I doubt whether the typical believer was much concerned with what the Pope thought about most subjects. (The major schisms, needless to say, were rarely driven by typical believers!)

I'd be more inclined to do it by social affiliation--which church do you go to? Which other churches do they consider to be part of the same organization? Which priests do you go to for advice and administration of the sacraments, and who do they take orders from? And so on.

Posted by: socratus | December 28, 2010 2:23 PM

God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.
==.
Can God be explained by Physical formulas and laws?
I think ‘ Yes’ , we can understand God’s Nature by Physical
formulas and laws. I think God has given to us everything
that necessary to understand Him and His Genesis using
Physical Laws and Formulas.
===.
Scheme.
Ten Scientific Commandments: Fundamental Theory of Existence.

1 The infinite vacuum T=0K. ( background energy space: E ).
2 The particle:
C/D = pi, R/N= k , E = Mc^2 = kc^2 , h = 0 , i^2= -1
3 The spins: h =E/t , h =kb, h* = h/2pi
4 The photon, the inertia
5 The electron: e^2 = h*ca, E = h*f , electromagnetic field
6 The gravitation, the star, the time and space
7 The Proton
8
The Evolution of interaction between Electron and Proton
a) electromagnetic
b) nuclear
c) biological
9
The Laws
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
10
The test.
Every theory must be tested logically ( theoretical ) and practically
a) Theory : Dualism of Consciousness: (consciousness / unconsciousness)
b) Practice : Parapsychology. Meditation.
========.
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
============.
#
The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden
in ‘ Vacuum and Quantum of Light Theory ’.
==========..
#
I want to know how God created this world
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details
/Einstein/
==========.
...
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372