Multinational surveys have often reported that Americans are much more likely to believe in God than people in most other developed countries, particularly in Europe. However, a new Harris Poll finds that 42 percent of all U.S. adults say they are not “absolutely certain” there is a God, including 15 percent who are “somewhat certain,” 11 percent who think there is probably no God and 16 percent who are not sure.
Over the last few years, several different surveys have found that more people admit to potentially embarrassing beliefs or behaviors when answering online surveys (without interviewers) than admit to these behaviors when talking to interviewers in telephone surveys. They are also three times more likely to say that their sexual orientation is gay, lesbian or bi-sexual. Researchers call this unwillingness to give honest answers to some questions in telephone surveys a “social desirability bias.”
It is therefore no surprise that in this online survey, more people say they are not absolutely certain there is a God than have given similar replies in other surveys conducted by telephone.
Only 76 percent of Protestants, 64 percent of Catholics, and 30 percent of Jews say they are “absolutely certain” there is a God. However, most Christians who describe themselves as “Born Again” (93%) are absolutely certain there is a God.
Are believers declining?
Three years ago, in an identical survey, 79 percent of adults said they believed in God and 66 percent said they were absolutely certain that there is a God. In this new survey, those numbers have declined to 73 percent and 58 percent respectively.
My guess is that it takes more than an essential understanding of science to loose the bonds of superstition. I suppose “faith” is still critical to sanity for some folks; though, obviously, that number continues to decline.
What is so difficult about folks taking just one step towards decision-making grounded in material reality — instead of relying on catechistic almanacs of mystery and myth written centuries ago?
I would say a fair amount of people who say they believe in God is to cover their ass when they die.
Figure – It doesn’t cost anything to SAY you believe in God and it doesn’t hurt to try to convince yourself either. If you die and you get questioned at the pearly gates, you can demand a video of yourself and batta bing, you’re in!!
Considering the way our society acts, lives and enacts laws I would say that those that really believe in God is a lot lower than what this survey indicates. Either that or they compartmentalize their beliefs from day to day.
Top Ten Reason to Use Science as the Basis of Our Society:
1.) We could scientifically tests all unborn biological material, known colloquially as children, to decide which will be an asset to society and which to abort. Since a male is capable of doing a greater amount of physical work they would be favored over females.
2.) Since adults reach their full potential as earners by age 50, we could set minimum limit for life renewal based upon one’s contribution to society.
3.) Since it has been shown, scientifically that most of the conflict has occurred due to either reasons of finance or reasons of procreation all transfer of resources biological and monetary will be issued based upon one’s scientific value to society.
4.) All adults must meet the latest scientific standards and tests, biological and educational, prior to procreation. A further license would be needed to allow such human material to administer and substance or educational services to the biological material rendered from their mutual egg fertilization.
5.) Since it’s been shown that nuclear power is the safest type of mass produced power, it should become mandatory for all states and localities.
6.) Since science is to be the basis of human interaction, there is no need for the following privaliages : a.) there is no right to self-defense, only the state has enough science personnel to decide who needs protection; b.) only those sentiments that reflect scientific thought are allowed to be expressed; c.) since political parties are not scientific then they can not exist, only the one true science committee.
7.) Since certain backwards suppositious individuals are not using the latest science for decision making, they should have to wear special labels to indicate that they are the dangerous elements to society and have their privileges curtailed. That is, until they aren’t given life renewal permit, where upon we could collect all such surplus biological material for disposal ( you know the way we do unwanted biological material called babies by the uneducated).
It’s all science, or is it a ‘World View Point’? Has science always been correct 100% of the time, or has the Religion of Science been known to make mistakes?
I know with absolute certainty that God exists. I have a friend who had a cousin who knows this guy who worked with a guy who read a book that claimed that either God or cheese really exists. If that’s not sufficient evidence for things unseen, I don’t know what is!
traaxx — someday, I’ll explain statements of attainder to you. Meanwhile, I presume you already know your “argument” is as banal as it is foolish.
#4 – Maybe, but you can’t cut the god.
#3 – What a lovely, irrelevant homage to Swift’s “Modest Proposal.” But really it’s not Faith in Science vs Faith in Things Unseen. Science is full of things unseen but only inferred from evidence. The dispute (fueled by people of “faith”) is about where one sources the inferences. Evidence works better for me than what some self-appointed agenda-setter dictates. I don’t trust politicians for the same reason – they dress their agendas up in symbols and expect me to live by them. Plus there’s the whole murderous side of people who claim to know what Jesus or whoever meant as opposed to what Jesus or whoever actually said. Looking at the results when such people come into positions of power, I have to say I don’t trust the voices they’re listening to.
Einstein believed in God. He didn’t believe in a personal God that listened to your whininess and change fate accordingly. His God was more of a grand engineer that got the thing going, gave his best wishes and left you to it.
regarding: #3) Comment by traaxx — 11/4/2006 @ 8:28 am
I have a suggestion because I care about you. Every 30 minutes or so (that’s when Mickey’s big hand is on the “6”) try to breath through your nose. Breathing exclusively through one’s mouth, as I’m sure you do, tends to dry out the delicate tissue of the upper respiratory system increasing the risk that tiny demons sent from the bowels of Hell by the Prince of Darkness himself will invade your body and force your brain to generate neurons that will communicate with each other, engender actual cognitive abilities and possibly even result in your IQ exceeding room temperature. Could there be a more frightening scenario? It’s all spelled out word for word in the Bible, you know. If I recall correctly, it’s right after the part about the consumption of shellfish being an abomination and before the instructions on how to make a fuzzy bunny animal sacrifice generate an odor that is pleasing to God. If you get to the part that says handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God, you’ve gone too far. Go back to where it says anyone with a “flat nose” must stay away from the altar of God and look for the line about what to do if you get your “seed of copulation” on yourself, your clothes, or your partner and go from there. You’ll find it, I’m sure. Just keep looking. Your salvation is at stake and we wouldn’t want you to be tortured for all of eternity in the fires of Hell because you couldn’t follow a few simple instructions.
-Dave
#6 I feel the same way when people come to power that look at people as the ‘masses’ or as resources.
#5, if everything is to be based upon scientific evidence then why would you need ‘bill of attainder’. This would be an outdated idea based upon a superstitious notion that people have innate rights given by God. It’s not an argument for or against, just the logical conclusion of what “Eideard” wants society to be based upon. I truly feel for if you don’t like it.
In the Meanwhile: Since many in the scientific community also believe that the earth can only sustain 250 million humans, will need to be cutting back a little. The most scientific method would be to sort the subject matter, based upon its scientific usefulness and then the dispose of the rest prior to any continued consumption of non-renewable resources. It’s been shown, in the past, that by concentrating the unwanted biological material within a predefined area and thereafter treating it with gas, as the most economical manner and subsequent disposal in such a manner so as to not pollute the local surroundings, as the most efficient and scientific manner for solving this problem and bringing the earth back into ‘balance’. If decay proves to be a pollution problem then past precedent would indicate that cremation as the most prudent expedient.
#8 Really, what you said has no scientific basis. You must be using superstitious notions to base you deduction upon. Or are you really upset about the logical conclusion of a scientific society?
After reading the responses, no one has said that I was wrong in my conclusions. They just don’t seem to like hearing them, and they like calling names. Sound scientific to me?????????
I guess the best scientific data will be sampled when the day of rapture comes.
10 After reading the responses, no one has said that I was wrong in my conclusions.
Of course not.
Being un-workable doesn’t make them wrong.
Being un-popular doesn’t make them wrong.
Why would I be opposed to living in the world you suggest ?
I like how Since certain backwards suppositious individuals are not using the latest science for decision making, they should have to wear special labels to indicate that they are the dangerous elements to society … …reminds me of Bill Engvall’s routine about stupid people and “Here’s your sign!” 🙂
http://www.billengvall.com/content/home.html
The title of this particular thread is totally bugus – what % of that 58% are misstating their beliefs in order to screw the ranking system? What % click on the wrong checkbox or radiobutton? Without that information theres no way to accurately ascertain that 58% is correct.
Bogus stats are teh suck.
Unlike so many gods who demand belief and worship, I prefer Apollo, the sun god. Whether or not you shower him with praise, he still rises with faithful regularity to bring light and warmth to the world. Unlike many deities, I can actually see Apollo. He’s everything I need in a god, and in the end, isn’t religion really about me anyway?
If you’re shopping for a god, I heartily recommend Apollo. He’s powerful, yet very low maintenance 😉
P.S. to Mike Voice…
I’ve only seen bits and pieces of Engvall’s “Here’s your sign” routine, but didn’t know he was talking about a “stupid” sign, so thanks, Mike (and please don’t make me wear my own sign).
And in other news… The last idiot has not been born yet.
#8 Really, what you said has no scientific basis.
Does too, does too, does too. Na, na, na. Boo, boo, boo!!
Breathing exclusively through the mouth, as you do, causes the loss of moisture in ciliated pseudo stratified columnar epithelium that lines portions of the trachea, reducing the ability of the cilia to remove bacteria and foreign matter, increasing inflammation, causing its integrity to be compromised (much like your arguments), increasing the likelihood of infection.
Since you’re complaining that no tells you’re wrong, let me take this opportunity. You’re wrong.
Dave about what, the conclusion of a scientific society? Or are you just angry about God? I didn’t provide any arguments, I just followed your, apparent, religious belief in science to its conclusion, just like Hitler, Stalin and so many other mass murders
Let’s try a different track.
1.) Science has no morality. There is no right or wrong, only proven fact and unproven fact
2.) No one can say that their moral judgment is better than another’s, simply because without religious boundaries there is no finial arbitrator just who is stronger and able to enforce their will.
3.) A societies laws are the function of it’s basic moral judgment, which in turn is derived from its religious beliefs.
4.) If, as those that say they only want science to be the basis of all decisions, you get rid of religion then you also get rid of any point of reference for societies morality or laws.
5.) When there is no reference for morality who’s to say what is right or wrong. Is it really wrong to kill? Ask yourself why, and don’t go back to religion or the ‘it’s just wrong and everyone knows it’. Answer why it’s wrong scientifically. According to Darwin the fittest survive, correct?
6.) Most people that promote anti-religious, or more pointedly anti-Christian, views scavenge off their upbringing in a Christian/Julian society for their morality.
The point I’m trying to make is simply that science has been used to enact many of the ideas presented in #3, and many are currently being promoted by population control advocates today. The reasoning use is scientific, usually environmentalist. If you feel society is lost today then maybe the lack of religious belief is the result. If you promote a lack of religious belief then you can look forward to more crime, death and chaos, with ever tightening governmental control over the freedoms we still have left.
traaxx – you require proof and evidence to back your assertions. Please provide it so your hypothetical model can be peer reviewed.
“peer” reviewed?
Half of ’em are under indictment. The other half are busy rationalizing a defense for the first half.
18 Is it really wrong to kill?
No.
If I thought otherwise, I would be a Buddist – and not want to kill anything that “walks, swims, or flys”.
I’m the type of person who would put my name in the hat for the chance to be on the firing squad [ I wish] for: Ted Bundy, Wayne Williams, John Wayne Gacy, etc.
18 If…you get rid of religion then you also get rid of any point of reference for societies morality or laws.
I can see religion being a basis for morality, but why is religion needed as a point of reference for laws?
Not paying taxes deprives the state of funds it needs to operate.
Driving too fast places yourself [assuming you are a productive menber of society] at risk, along with other productive members of society being placed at risk. If you have an accident, it also costs the state to clean-up the mess.
Killing a productive member of society harms the state by [ at least temporarily ] reducing its productive capacity.
Why is religion needed to support law?
Ok Traaxx, lets talk about your statements…
1.) Science has no morality. There is no right or wrong, only proven fact and unproven fact
True, so? Morality is a personal issue, it’s a subjective and sociological construct.
2.) No one can say that their moral judgment is better than another’s, simply because without religious boundaries there is no finial arbitrator just who is stronger and able to enforce their will.
Assuming that is true.. which is a big assumption… which religion/god would you like to have the moral standards taken from? Even if you are just dealing with the concept of a single God the main religions differ wildly in what is correct.
Plus a lot of bad things get done in the name of religion and god, so that way of ensuring morality doesn’t seem to work either.
3.) A societies laws are the function of it’s basic moral judgment, which in turn is derived from its religious beliefs.
Proof? I can turn this around to a more sensible idea: religious morals came from basic moral judgments that people made in civilized society, and existed to promote a specific moral view. These common standards were later upheld in laws of various countries, no matter the religion.
4.) If, as those that say they only want science to be the basis of all decisions, you get rid of religion then you also get rid of any point of reference for societies morality or laws.
I have news for you – science has no applicability to laws or morality. It is merely concerned with explanation and application of events. You are arguing a straw man here, and a poor one.
5.) When there is no reference for morality who’s to say what is right or wrong.
The answer is the same as it has always been: a combination of the majority, and the ones in power. If you think it has ever been any different then you need to read some history.
Is it really wrong to kill? Ask yourself why, and don’t go back to religion or the ‘it’s just wrong and everyone knows it’. Answer why it’s wrong scientifically.
Again, science doesn’t deal with morals. Anhow – is it always wrong to kill? If so then why do many religious states have the death penalty? Religion hasn’t helped eradicate killing so the religion = morals = not killing argument isn’t working out is it?
According to Darwin the fittest survive, correct?
Well.. no. Incorrect Darwin never used that phrase, and disliked it. Plus you misunderstand “survival of the fittest” anyway.
6.) Most people that promote anti-religious, or more pointedly anti-Christian, views scavenge off their upbringing in a Christian/Julian society for their morality.
I refer you to my previous answer about this – religions all over the world have the same basic morality. All gods are the same? Or is it because they wanted to reinforce the basic morality that most people have? Could it be that religion scavenged the morality first? I would say the evidence points to yes.
Your thoughts?
20) # “peer” reviewed?
Half of ‘em are under indictment. The other half are busy rationalizing a defense for the first half.
Comment by god — 11/4/2006 @ 1:34 pm
Your name is spelled with a capital ‘g’. The way you signed it is a mistake. Therefore, god is not God. My goodness. That could only mean some psychopathic evangelical nutjob is spouting nonsense and claiming that it is the word of God. What a shock. I’ve never heard of that happening before. Vanna, show us the which of the 10 commandments this contestant has broken.
You shall not make for yourself any graven image (like impersonating God, for instance)
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain (like impersonating God, for instance)
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (like saying “Half of ‘em are under indictment. The other half are busy rationalizing a defense for the first half.”)
Honor your father and your mother (Your mother told you not to touch two things and one was a computer)
Looks like a total of 4, Pat. This contestant gets to keep playing until he’s broken at least 7. Spin again……..
#11) ‘guess the best scientific data will be sampled when the day of rapture comes.”
Comment by Dugger — 11/4/2006 @ 9:41 am
Don’t you just love being lectured by someone who’s grip on reality is so tenuous that they believe any second the Big Sky Fairy will magically whisk them into heaven. I know I do. It always engenders the utmost respect for any opinion. Thank you for that astonishingly insightful post, Dugger.
#24: I read his comment as being intentionally ironically humorous.
Chuckle! I’ve been waiting for someone to point out that traaxx’s 10 reasons — total 8.
His understanding of science may be less than competent; but, his abilities at mathematics are really terrible.
Are we certain that traaxx does not write for National Lampoon?
Traax,
I was going to answer your solid points with wit and wisdom. But damn, you used such big words, I’m confused. My head hurts. Another anti-christ Christian leader has been found out.
What am I to do? I can’t write Dear Abby, she’s Jewish.
“Faith” by definition means that you don’t know something for certain. You either choose to believe it or you don’t. I choose to believe in God and consider Him to be an important part of my life. I also think that humans ARE by nature spiritual creatures. Many of the best scientists in history were / are also deeply spiritual people.
One interesting thing about man’s spiritual nature is that it seems to be easily satisfied in the worship of any number of different false gods, as anthropologists will attest. Although the concept of spiritual fulfillment may seem quite subjective and hard to define, when a religion is passed down through many generations of a culture, that is a fairly reliable and objective indicator of satisfaction. Gods are most likely to be discarded in favor of new ones when a culture is experiencing great hardship or defeated in war.
Personally, I’d like to see Consumer Reports do a comparison survey of the different religions for customer satisfaction. That could really be a best-seller issue 😉