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?
Cargo Cults are the thing that amuse me when it comes to anthropology and faith…
#18
> 1.) Science has no morality. There is no right or wrong,
> only proven fact and unproven fact
Your statement is a non-sequiter. Saying that science has no morality is like saying that checking your rearview mirror before backing up has no morality. Science is a *technique*; it is a means to find truth not a means unto itself.
> 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.
It is already the case that other people’s “moral” judgement is enforced upon us through legislation and the courts. This is true across all countries with officials subscribing to a variety of religious beliefs. US society as a whole through the mechanisms of their elected officials, the laws they pass and the judges they appoint are the final arbitrator. To say one’s moral judgement is “better” is to be arrogant towards one own beliefs which is one of the ways that relgions nuts get into wars.
> 3.) A societies laws are the function of it’s basic moral
> judgment, which in turn is derived from its religious
> beliefs.
Bullshit. Laws are derived from a variety of sources. For those officials that are religious, it is true that much of their influence is from their faith. However, influence comes from many sources including the Constitution and the constituencies which consist of multiple religions.
> 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.
Science is a technique to find truth. Faith is also a technique to find truth that has proven itself to be wholly inaccurate.
Morality is not based on religion. Morality is based on fundamental truths that span many religions and cultures. Try reading Dr. Michael Schermer’s “The Science of Good and Evil.”
> 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?
The reference for morality is always based on the same principles: what is best for the person *and* best for society. Murder for example, is banned in almost every society. That means that concept spans numerous religions, deities and even atheists. How can that be possible? Perhaps “religion” has nothing to do with it. Perhaps it is the case that in order for a society to survive it cannot let people go about killing other people willy-nilly. In other words, morality also has a practical element to it.
> 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.
Christianity and Judiasm themselves have scavanged off other societies for their morality. What does that prove? The only thing we can say is that our current feelings of morality (which have changed over the years) are an amalgamation of ideas from many cultures.
> 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.
Lack of religious belief does not lead to more crime. If that were the case, then there should be more atheists in jail than any other type and the opposite happens to be the case.
Again, science is a technique. Many have used that technique to attain political power such as the Nazis. No one ever suggested that science was infalliable. However, science has the capability of self-correction which religion does not. Fundamentally, the problem with religion is that it promotes blind acceptance. Once you go down the road of blindly accepting one thing, it becomes much easier to get that person to blindly accept something else.
98% of all statistics are made up on the spot, the other 4% only say what you want people to believe.
WOW! BOOBS! :O
is your blog still on a US server? :O
#25 You are correct with your interpretation of my comment.