Harold Camping:
That undead preacher from Poltergeist:
Coincidence?
I think not.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
"You keep using that word. Somehow I don't think it means what you think it means."
So the average for the poll is 50% correct, and the highest average in the subgroups is 65%. I dunno about any of you, but that's a failing grade where I come from.
EVERYBODY FAILS.
Now, if you go here you can take a 15 question quiz and compare yourself to everybody else who took the longer quiz for this poll. I got 14 out of 15 (I dunno which one I missed--maybe the one about the great awakening) and that, apparently, is better than "97% of the public". These questions were not hard.
All this really tells me is that atheists and agnostics probably know more about various religions because the atheists like to refute everybody's beliefs, and the agnostics have probably shopped around looking for something agreeable. Therefore, more exposure. Mormons probably end up knowing more because what, every Mormon male able to has to go be a 'missionary' for 2 years? Therefore, more exposure. I'll bet that every Jew they talked to was a college graduate, which again means more exposure. The rest who identify with a particular religion are likely comfortable with it and most probably brought up in it, and are not curious about other beliefs, because, well, why would you be?
I'd love to see Pew go and try this in other countries, and see how they score.
The New York Times points to this 'poll' by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life:
"Researchers from the independent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life phoned more than 3,400 Americans and asked them 32 questions about the Bible, Christianity and other world religions, famous religious figures and the constitutional principles governing religion in public life."
And basically everybody they got to actually answer the questions "failed" the test.
Although you would not know that from these other commentors:
Here are the percentages from the Pew poll:
So the average for the poll is 50% correct, and the highest average in the subgroups is 65%. I dunno about any of you, but that's a failing grade where I come from.
EVERYBODY FAILS.
Now, if you go here you can take a 15 question quiz and compare yourself to everybody else who took the longer quiz for this poll. I got 14 out of 15 (I dunno which one I missed--maybe the one about the great awakening) and that, apparently, is better than "97% of the public". These questions were not hard.
All this really tells me is that atheists and agnostics probably know more about various religions because the atheists like to refute everybody's beliefs, and the agnostics have probably shopped around looking for something agreeable. Therefore, more exposure. Mormons probably end up knowing more because what, every Mormon male able to has to go be a 'missionary' for 2 years? Therefore, more exposure. I'll bet that every Jew they talked to was a college graduate, which again means more exposure. The rest who identify with a particular religion are likely comfortable with it and most probably brought up in it, and are not curious about other beliefs, because, well, why would you be?
I'd love to see Pew go and try this in other countries, and see how they score.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES UNDER ATTACK
RELIGIOUS LIBERTIES UNDER ATTACK
Feddie over at Southern Appeal has an informative post concerning Sen. Grassley’s assault on our First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. The word needs to get out about this abuse of government power.
Feddie over at Southern Appeal has an informative post concerning Sen. Grassley’s assault on our First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. The word needs to get out about this abuse of government power.
I don't have words for this.
Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'
(via memeorandum)
Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'
I had come to the conclusion that Rowan is basically an old fool, but whoa, what a fool. His stupidity knows no bounds, it seems.The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law
in the UK "seems unavoidable".
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
(via memeorandum)
Hitchens, and the debate that could have been:
It was noted recently in the Hall that when Christopher Hitchens took part in a debate about religion, he and his opponent were mismatched.
That observation was brought to mind when I ran into a book review on Hitchens' book, provocatively entitled God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
The book review--actually, a criticism of a book review, coupled with a review of the book--was done by Robert Miller, one of the many scholars who write at the First Things blog.
Miller holds that Hitchens has gotten in over his head on the subject of religion. He also holds that the book reviewer--working for the prestigious New York Times--has done the reading world a disservice, by failing to note the many ways in which Hitchens has ignored learning the elementals of the philosophy of religion.
I will confess that I determined to ignore Christopher Hitchens when I learned the title of his book. A book which gives away both its central attitude and its concluding thought in the title is probably not a book which needs too much attention.
Hitchens' book (and the review, and the book-and-review review) do raise questions. Has the study of philosophy--or the philosophy of religion--become so unpopular among scholars that non-specialists are unaware of its existence? Is there a special animus against religious belief among scientists?
Is such an animus typical in certain branches of science, or is it an occasional thing?
One more (partly humorous) question arises: given Hitchens' statements in debates and writings in the book, what would G.K. Chesterton have said about this?
It was noted recently in the Hall that when Christopher Hitchens took part in a debate about religion, he and his opponent were mismatched.
That observation was brought to mind when I ran into a book review on Hitchens' book, provocatively entitled God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
The book review--actually, a criticism of a book review, coupled with a review of the book--was done by Robert Miller, one of the many scholars who write at the First Things blog.
Miller holds that Hitchens has gotten in over his head on the subject of religion. He also holds that the book reviewer--working for the prestigious New York Times--has done the reading world a disservice, by failing to note the many ways in which Hitchens has ignored learning the elementals of the philosophy of religion.
I will confess that I determined to ignore Christopher Hitchens when I learned the title of his book. A book which gives away both its central attitude and its concluding thought in the title is probably not a book which needs too much attention.
Hitchens' book (and the review, and the book-and-review review) do raise questions. Has the study of philosophy--or the philosophy of religion--become so unpopular among scholars that non-specialists are unaware of its existence? Is there a special animus against religious belief among scientists?
Is such an animus typical in certain branches of science, or is it an occasional thing?
One more (partly humorous) question arises: given Hitchens' statements in debates and writings in the book, what would G.K. Chesterton have said about this?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)