I think a lot of it can be explained by simple ignorance. These people are probably the same people who think that Abraham Lincoln was the fifth U.S. President (that’s why he’s on the $5 bill!) They belong to their religion as an expression of their tribal identity, and they don’t really care too much about the details.

The version of the quiz I took had questions about a number of religions. Perhaps people who only know about their own religion are more likely to accept it than people who know something about more than one religion?

in b4 “why are you so INTOLERANT of my RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION”

I remember when there were rallies outside the Alabama courthouse about the 10 Commandments display. A news team interviewed a bunch of the people who were out there in favor of the display, and many of them couldn’t even name more than a couple commandments.

These people are probably the same people who think that Abraham Lincoln was the fifth U.S. President (that’s why he’s on the $5 bill!)

So about 60 presidents from now, we’re going to elect Zombie Benjamin Franklin president? Awesome.

I reckon that the higher scores among atheists is the same correlation as that between high levels of education and atheism. People who know more stuff in general are going to know more religious trivia in particular. So I think its wrong to conclude that atheists know more religious trivia *because* they are atheists.

If the questions got into serious doctrinal questions I suspect adherants would take the lead. I was able to get the transubstantiation question but if there were questions that went into Catholic dogma in any greater depth I’d be at a loss.

Well I just took the test and got 14 which a) is pretty good considering I’m not American and b) fits I guess since according to the results it’s actually Jewish participants who score the highest, not atheists or agnostics. In any case, it doesn’t really prove anything more than which groups have had the widest religious education at school.

It’s like stating someone is intrinsically a bad guitar player because they score badly on a pop music quiz. I genuinely don’t see any relation between the depth of someone’s personal faith and their knowledge of other religions’ beliefs and rituals, though I guess if you take the view that everyone’s faith, regardless of degree or direction all falls under a big block of evil and stupidity called RELIGION, those kinds of simplistic arguments probably do appeal.

If the questions got into serious doctrinal questions I suspect adherants would take the lead.

You’d be surprised. Well, it varies a lot based on denomination as well. Catholics tend to know more about their Church’s doctrine. But most Protestants just take whatever they were culturally conditioned to believe is wrong and decide that those gut feelings are actually objective moral truth straight from God.

I got 14/15 :D

Many, maybe most, atheists that I know came to atheism because they learned so much about religion, enough that the logical inconsistencies and overt wish fulfillment aspects of it made it impossible to take it seriously.

This was me. I don’t remember exactly what prompted it but one lucky day in my youth my father sat me down at the kitchen table and handed me the bible. He told me I can’t believe everything that’s told to me and I need to know the bible for myself.  Thinking back on it I don’t think he liked what our preacher was preaching cause he stopped going to church (then again, he just might’ve enjoyed the extra sleep time). I stopped going as soon as my mother couldn’t muster the energy to make me go anymore.

I’d never actually read Genesis or any other chapter whole and by zeus my mind was opened. Pretty much by the time I turned the page my brain was going “This shit doesn’t make any sense” and there were contradictions galore. I didn’t read the whole thing all the way through, but I read enough and I didn’t like it. To me, even if god existed he was a dick and not something I was going to worship. In my teens I found out Jesus wasn’t white and blond and blue eyed, which was evidence my church had lied to me. Nail number two in that coffin. Later I got into mythology and found out damn near everything in the old and new testement was plagiarized from the pagens. Nail number three.

And growing up in the bible belt I came to hate the people who labeled themselves “christians”.

It’s been a struggle but slowly and surely I am becoming an atheist. I’ve admitted to myself I don’t believe in god any longer but I haven’t said anything to still religious friends and family.

In re: SKoF @ #6

according to the results it’s actually Jewish participants who score the highest, not atheists or agnostics

To quote the Pew: “On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively”

So according to the results, overall, A&A;did better. Jews did score better (7.9 v. 7.5) on questions about religions besides Christianity. 

Amusingly, only 93% of polled self-identifying Mormons knew Joseph Smith was involved with Mormonism.

I got a 15/15, the only question that made me think much was “when does the Jewish sabbath begin?”

I came to atheism simply because religion is not provable. 

My late-SO had a great saying, she was a born-again atheist—she woke up one morning and god still didn’t exist!

I got 14/15. :p I got the communion one wrong… I actually knew the correct answer for Catholicism but I think I went with the more Episcopalian one reflexively (at least, the “symbolic” meaning is the one I was brought up hearing.) But it’s still a fair score, ‘cause I totally got “Jonathon Edwards” right by guessing (hey, I never claimed I was a historian.)

I think that religion in general does not well tolerate a combination of education and examination. And I mean “tolerate” in any sense of the word…

Religion reminds me of those insects that have showy, beautiful colorings.  It seems really beautiful, but if you examine it up close, it’s actually a big, gross insect with hairy legs and overall creepy-crawliness.

Tell us more about your reaction to puberty, Amanda… 8-)

It, unsurprisingly, discovered that Americans are both really religious and profoundly ignorant, even about their own supposed faith.  But the big news is that atheists score better than all other groups on the test.

A look at the breakdown of answers by religious affiliation shows that’s not quite right.  Believers tend to score better than atheists on questions about their own beliefs, but worse than atheists on questions about the beliefs of others.  For example, Mormons and Protestants of all subgroups score higher than atheists in correctly identifying the birthplace of Jesus and the names of the four gospels.  White evangelicals, Mormons, and Jews all score better than atheists on the five questions about the Old Testament.  In both of these cases, Catholics finish behind atheists.  This makes sense in the context of the centrality of Biblical reading in Protestant sects in contrast to Catholicism.  Similarly, atheists score lower than Catholics but higher than Protestants, Jews, and Mormons in correctly answering the question about the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation.  A similar pattern holds for the questions about Mormonism and Judaism.  And atheists do better than everyone else on the world religions questions.

The study doesn’t seem to show that atheists know more about a given religious faith than its practitioners, but it does seem to show that believers know less about other faiths than atheists do.

I got the Jonathan Edwards one wrong because I was thinking of that TV psychic with the crazy eyes. But I knew it wasn’t Billy Graham. The other guy was probably a serial killer. But that was the only one I got wrong.

#5

If the questions got into serious doctrinal questions I suspect adherants would take the lead. I was able to get the transubstantiation question but if there were questions that went into Catholic dogma in any greater depth I’d be at a loss.

From the NYT article:
¶ Forty-five percent of Catholics did not know that their church teaches that the consecrated bread and wine in holy communion are not merely symbols, but actually become the body and blood of Christ.

Nearly HALF of Catholics don’t know one of the most major doctrines that separates them from Protestants.  And you think they’d do better if quizzed on Humanae Vitae?

“Religion gets less believable the harder you look”

...well, then don’t look at it so dang hard! 

Just blindly accept whatever the (male) Authority Figures tell you, no matter how crazy/self-serving/counter-to-your-own-interests, and that’s all there is to it!  Oh, and give them money. 

If you follow all the rules, and do everything you’re told exactly the way you were told to do it (even if the Authority Figures disagree on what those things should be and how they should be done), then you will get some glorious reward!  We promise!

(“Reward” shown is for illustration purposes only.  Actual “reward” may be substantially different.  Promise of “reward” cannot be construed as forming an actual contract between a believer and his/her Authority Figures.  Promise of “reward” is non-binding, and does not constitute a guarantee of “reward”. Authority Figures will determine the actual “reward”, if any “reward” is given.  Promise of “reward” is only valid under the terms described.  Terms may be changed without notice.  Void where prohibited.  Not valid on blackout dates.  If any “reward” is given, the receiver shall be responsible for any applicable taxes.  See your local religious purveyor for details…)

Or, shit, the spiritual and corporal works of mercy?

@14: Wouldn’t it be valuable to break the atheist category down a little more, though, to make that kind of comparison? Ex-Protestant atheists might be more knowledgeable than practicing Protestants about that religion, etc., but “atheist” includes Ex-Muslim/Jewish/etc. too.* For atheists to score better than all practitioners they’d have to be expert at every religion, right? That requires that Ex-Muslim atheists know more than practicing Mormons about Mormonism, for example, which might really stack the deck against the broad category of “atheists” outperforming religious types. I want to control for religious background is what I’m saying, I guess. Is the atheist version of X religion more knowledgeable than the people still practicing it?

*(Obviously not every atheist is “Ex” something but I’ll bet a lot are.)

“Nearly HALF of Catholics don’t know one of the most major doctrines that separates them from Protestants.

More surprising still (well, to me anyway) is that 81% of Protestants are unaware of the doctrine of salvation by faith alone.

Yeah, #21, that’s even worse!  No wonder they all do anti-choice work together these days.  They can’t remember what separated them in the first place.  But hey, abortion baaaaad.

Is the atheist version of X religion more knowledgeable than the people still practicing it?

That’s a good question, and yeah, it would be helpful to get the kind of breakdown you’re talking about.  I don’t know the answer, obviously (best guess: maybe).  But because the Pew folks didn’t do that, I think it’s fair to say that the survey doesn’t show that atheists know more about a given religion than its adherents; in fact, it shows the opposite to be true.

14/15. Damned “Great Awakening” and John Edwards.

A friend on FB posted about how few Catholics knew what transubstantiation was. Yup, Christians, your communion is cannibalism. For Catholics it’s magical and actual, the Proddy’s just go with symbolic.  It’s fun talking about this in class and watch students realize that their central ritual is cannibalistic.

@ #7 I was in a Medieval Philosophy course, which just happened to be taught by the advisor to the biggest Fundie Christian student organizations on campus, so the the 30 student class was 27 rabid young Christians, me (the Wiccan), the punk rock kid and my buddy the Atheist. 

Guess which three hands went up to answer questions most frequently?
The witch, the punk rocker and the atheist.

Now guess who asked the question, in class, “Well, if God created everything, where did the Devil and demons come from?”

Yup, one of the Christians.  AND guess which three hands went up when the professor said, “Well, can anyone answer that question?”

Yeah, they’re ignorant of the base myths of their belief system, so I’m not real sure that they’re gonna do that well on doctrinal policy either. 

sigh

I do know several very thoughtful Christians who read the Bible for themselves and are very open-minded, but they are few and far between.

I got a fifteen out of fifteen but I had to guess the Jonathan Edwards question.

  Many of the Jews participating in the survey probably consider themselves atheist/agnostic but decided to identify as Jewish because they primarily identify as Jews. Remember, Jewishness is an ethnic and religious term.
 
  bad Jim at 23, many people are unaware of the great Jewish thinkers outside the Jewish community since Jewish studies isn’t as fashionable among non-Jews in the same way that Asian studies is fashionable among many non-Asians or Islamic studies with many non-Muslims. Jewish studies departments tend to consist of Jewish professors teaching Jewish students and a few non-Jewish students taking a course as a requirement or elective. There are exceptions but this is the general rule.

I reckon that the higher scores among atheists is the same correlation as that between high levels of education and atheism. People who know more stuff in general are going to know more religious trivia in particular. So I think its wrong to conclude that atheists know more religious trivia *because* they are atheists.

No.  Atheists scored higher even when the results are controlled for education.  The best explanation, I think, is that atheists, mormons and jews are minorities, and minorities tend to be well-informed about the dominant culture as well as about their own.

I do think learning about the diversity of faiths leads to atheism, because you begin to see how each religion’s claims are similar (in the sense of being made up) and different (which indicates that they can’t all be true, and the likeliest story is none are).

15/15 on the abbreviated, but only 31 out of 32 on the full version.  Atheist for roughly 36 years.  No surprises in any of this for me.

Actually Amanda, I’d take the opposite view. If each religion’s views are similar that’s probably a sign that they all originate from the same source, it’s just cultural differences and the passing of time that lead to divisions in ritual and interpretation.

I really don’t understand the idea that unless one religion’s claims are 100% true, all religion is 100% false, similar to the one [scrolls up] UltraMagnus made about reading the bible, deciding it didn’t make sense and concluding there couldn’t possibly be a God. I personally take the view that if you believe God exists, you must also take the view that your consciousness must be so far devolved in comparison that bitching about names and rituals between religions is meaningless, it all comes down to how your people choose to worship. It’s also a great reason to look for common ground between people of all beliefs instead of concentrating on those divisions and trying to convert others.

I think that there is an important semantic difference between athiest/agnostic people and those who follow religions (with some possible exceptions).  And that the connection between “know” and “believe”

For the religious, knowledge seems to proceed from belief, so if you believe something is true it’s almost the same as it being factually true.  (For example, God said it, I believe it, that settles it.)

While atheists, et al. have it the other way round, in order to “believe” something it must first be “known”.  So, it makes sense that atheists cannot bring themselves to believe things that are essentially unknowable.  Or know things that are unbelievable. 

The difference makes it very hard, if not impossible, to communicate with people on the other side of the divide.

Artiofab, I was going by the results on the left after I’d completed the survey. No idea how representative that is in comparison to the main study but I take your point. And on the subject, that’s quite a jump to make without any kind of proof whatsoever, Lee. Unless you’re one of those people who associate all Jews with being Commie heathens.

I do think learning about the diversity of faiths leads to atheism, because you begin to see how each religion’s claims are similar (in the sense of being made up) and different (which indicates that they can’t all be true, and the likeliest story is none are).

I think there’s something that goes beyond this, and that’s learning about the beliefs in historical context. Learning about how Christian beliefs were historically contingent was one thing for me; learning about their historical relationship to other belief systems had me questioning all of their truth claims.  Eventually, it was pretty easy to get to the point of, “all these things are human constructions.” Supernatural clams about a deity really did take on the value of claims about unicorns or garden gnomes.

31/32 on the expanded. I waffled on the Constitution questions between B and C and guessed wrong.

Jonathan Edwards I remembered from an American lit class, with his “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

Don’t know if it counts, but I’m ex-Catholic, loosely pagan, not really practicing anything at the moment. And I got the Maimonodes (sp?) question right because I remembered the medical center is Jewish affiliated.

I didn’t check the Pew site—but was there a region breakdown? I’d like to see that.

That was fun!

@Alden #5

I reckon that the higher scores among atheists is the same correlation as that between high levels of education and atheism.

From the Pew Forum’s Executive Summary: “Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education.”

@wtjs #14

A look at the breakdown of answers by religious affiliation shows that’s not quite right.  Believers tend to score better than atheists on questions about their own beliefs, but worse than atheists on questions about the beliefs of others.

That isn’t really much of a trend even for the sample questions, though.  I haven’t looked at the full results for all 32, but your observation isn’t really valid for a good 20% of the sample questions:

*What was the name of the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation?
highest number correct: Jewish (70), then Atheists and Agnostics (68)
White Mainline Protestants come in slightly below White Catholics (46 vs. 47)

*What was Mother Teresa’s religion?
highest number correct: Atheist and Agnostic and Mormons (both 89), THEN White Catholics (88)

*Which of the following is NOT one of the Ten Commandments?
While Atheists and Agnostics lag behind many who subscribe to those beliefs, they still answered correctly as often as Jewish (62), and more often than White Mainline and Black Protestants (both 49).

For the longer administered survey, the chart shown in the Executive Summary reveals that while White Protestants and Mormons do the best out of all groups on the 12 questions relating to “Bible and Christianity,” Atheists and Agnostics still do better than Catholics and Protestants, as larger groups.

15/15

Raised in one of the most religiously apathetic households in the Northwest! Which likely puts it in the running for most apathetic in the U.S.

Lot of that just seemed like random trivia (law school helping with two of ‘em). Talk to me about the theological teachings of…well anyone and I will draw a blank.

@Bethynyc

Jonathan Edwards I remembered from an American lit class, with his “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

Me too! (Of course, “Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God” I remember from…um…Walt Disney, Karl Malden, and Hayley Mills.)

@32 Bad Jim.

I was seven when I took my first communion classes.  The teacher and book both made sure we understood that the priest turns the wine and bread into the blood and body of Jesus, and I understood that, but I also assumed they thought we were old enough to know that we’re just pretending it’s Jesus’ blood and body, since it very obviously is NOT.  I mean, if it were, then someone eat his eyeballs and that would just be gross.  I believed this until well after a college, well after I’d been an atheist for many, many years, and then discovered accidentally that no, we’re all supposed to think it’s actually Jesus’ blood and body.

Bad Jim @ 32

I was raised Catholic and the whole transubstantiation was really beaten into us. We even had to take a test in order to get confirmed (and be able to stop going to CCD!). I was one question from failing and having to get special tutoring from the priest. So I was really surprised by the score.

What really throws your theory is that mormons did so well. Maybe this is due to some sort of majority faith privilege?

The teacher and book both made sure we understood that the priest turns the wine and bread into the blood and body of Jesus, and I understood that, but I also assumed they thought we were old enough to know that we’re just pretending it’s Jesus’ blood and body, since it very obviously is NOT.

Mmm - one of my important “WTF?” moments was the explanation that any empirical evidence that the wafer was still bread was merely one of the “accidents”, and that it was, in fact, really and truly the flesh of Christ. Only, you know, not in any way that could actually be demonstrated.  And, natural sceptic that I am, I couldn’t for the life of me figure out how something that couldn’t be demonstrated had actually occurred.

These days, I’d suggest a double-blind test with the administration of consecrated and unconsecrated wafers to the congregation, pair-matching them in terms of susceptibility to sin, and chart their levels of naughtiness.

All this relates to feminism insofar as women in these environments can often only express power by being patriarchal zealots (cf US 2010 election). This can backfire hilariously though, as in this passage I ran across today while surfing Google Books:

This is not a study of women of the heretical movements—it has enough to do to keep up with notable women acceted by the ‘legitimate’ church: but this thinking underlines the difficulties for many female worshippers of the time.  Women were amongst the first and most ardent followers of patristic preaching; and caused great discomfort to the said preachers by at times taking the preaching too literally.  Witness the embarrassment of writers who must explain to over-ardent female devotees why their teaching should not in fact be followed: who, for instance, having preached greatly on the virtues of chastity and poverty, were forced to explain to a wife why she must not then desert her husband to pursue these ‘preeminent virtues’; or, having lauded the virgin life to the skies, had to explain to a teenage girl who had chained herself to the altar in mid-service in protest at family opposition why, though manifestly the most blessed state, virginity still not be undertaken in defiance of her family.

—Gillian Cloke
This Female Man of God: Women and Spiritual Power in the Patristic Age, AD 350-450
1995

And: polytheist, 32/32.

That was a really easy test. It’s sad that people did so poorly on it overall.

Atheist, a Feminist:

The trend holds pretty well.  On the whole, atheists tend to know less about the doctrines and texts of a given religious sect than believers of that sect.  You’re right that there are a few exceptions.  Hispanic Catholics score lower than atheists on all Christianity questions except the only one explicitly related to Catholic dogma (the transubstantiation question).  The answers to the question about salvation certainly don’t support my claim.  And atheists appear to be more familiar with Martin Luther than any other group except for Jews, which is weird.  But I think my claim still stands: the survey shows that atheists tend to have a broader-based knowledge of religion, religions, and religious history than any group of believers, but know less about the specific details of a particular faith than adherents of that faith.

Actually Amanda, I’d take the opposite view. If each religion’s views are similar that’s probably a sign that they all originate from the same source, it’s just cultural differences and the passing of time that lead to divisions in ritual and interpretation.

Except that their views really aren’t very similar.  Abrahamic faiths believe that there’s one boss God, with various prophets, and a savior who may or may not have arrived yet.  Buddhism doesn’t really require any gods at all.  Hinduism has bunches of gods and may or may not have a boss god, depending.  In Shinto, everything has a living spirit, even rocks and trees and stuff.  The Greeks had a pantheon of gods, and some other guys who were responsible for creation.

Religions are all pretty much entirely different on all the details.  The main thing that they have in common is that they offer an explanation of where we came from, and of what will happen to us when we die.  And even in these details, they aren’t alike.  To this atheists eyes, it looks as though religion is a result of our natural human curiosity regarding our origins and our fear of death.

@wtjs

the survey shows that atheists tend to have a broader-based knowledge of religion, religions, and religious history than any group of believers, but know less about the specific details of a particular faith than adherents of that faith.

But that trend only holds if you say that Protestants and Catholics aren’t sects with beliefs.

If you ignore Mormons, then the group with the highest knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is Atheists and Agnostics.  If you want to subdivide the Protestants and Catholics, then Atheists and Agnostics still know more about the Bible and Christianity than all Christians except White Evangelicals.  Unless Mormons or Atheists and Agnostics as a group believe more in the Bible and Christianity than Protestants and Catholics do, I am not sure how Atheists and Agnostics scoring higher than the majority of Christians on questions about the Bible and Christianity demonstrates that believers score better on what they believe.

Without looking at the Catholic-specific and Protestant-specific questions in the 17 questions not given, the questions that are specifically about one Christian group’s beliefs or about Judaism that would support your trend represent only 25% of the total.  It is actually the same 20% as the “against the trend” results I cited if you ignore the Jonathan Edwards question, which was answered incorrectly by around 90% of all surveyed.

Atheist, A Feminist:

What do you mean by the “17 questions not given”?

Atheists averaged 20 out of 32, Catholics 16.X out of 32 (as I don’t have the NYT article in front of me).  A 62% to a 50%, both would be failing grades.  So before we put on the “atheists are just so much smarter because we don’t take a leap of faith!” cap lets at least recognize nobody is exactly winning the war on ignorance.  I would if anything argue that atheists who spend more time contemplating the lack of a god or gods and thus needs to be able to refute the religions is more able to accurately describe religious dogma.  Another alternative is that they are simply better educated, most likely taking actual theology classes.  Course this is largely conjecture and is by no means a statement on anything or anybody.

Then again, I took the longer test got a 29 out of 32 and I can quote Abraham Lincoln and sing at least two Lady Gaga songs without her vocal track and I have the whole “Life Won’t Wait” album off by heart.  If we’re discussing wrote memory, then I am rather proud of my stuffed to the brim with pointless knowledge mind.  I guess the point I am trying to reach is that Americans are inevitably very ignorant to religions both their own and others.  It is what breeds intolerance.  Education is the best answer to the whole discussion, trying to be open and honest, not simply standing there and refusing to learn or acknowledge their belief as reasonable which in this case, since it is theology and not biology or a hard science is completely reasonable.

@wjts

What bad Jim said.  Basically, what you say is true, but only if you qualify it…a lot.  You would be correct if you said that Catholics know better than Atheists and Agnostics what Catholics uniquely believe among Christians, but Atheists and Agnostics know better than Catholics what Catholics believe as Christians.  (According to the results, Prostestants (except for the subset of White Evangelical) don’t know better than Atheists and Agnostics what Protestants believe either uniquely or as Christians.)  Mormons know both Mormon-specific and Christian beliefs better than Atheists and Agnostics.  Jews know parts of the Old Testament better than Atheists and Agnostics do, but Atheists and Agnostics know other parts better than Jews do.  White Evangelicals know what as atheist is just as much as Atheists and Agnostics do, but Atheists and Agnostics are correct more often than every other religious group surveyed.  I see much more of a mixed bag than a trend.

On the Bible and Christianity (Judaism is considered a World Religion), the two top-scoring groups were Mormons and White Evangelicals.  Atheists and Agnostics were next, then Protestants in general (including those high scoring Evangelicals).  White Mainline Protestants and White Catholics answered fewer questions on the Bible and Christianity correctly than both Atheists and Agnostics, and Jews.  Unless Atheists and Agnostics believe in the Bible and Christianity more than Christians, your trend just isn’t shown by the survey.

Atheist, A Feminist:

OK.  I’m looking at the answers for each question broken down into subgroups here.  I’m also making the following assumptions:

1.  Close individual reading of the Bible and familiarity with its textual contents are more important theologically to Protestants than to Catholics.
2.  Christians of all stripes will be more familiar with the New Testament than the Old Testament as the former is of greater theological importance.

Looking at the two questions that have to do only with Judaism (“When does the Jewish Sabbath begin?” and Maimonides) and the three questions that have to do only with Mormonism, my thesis is confirmed: Jews and Mormons answer these questions correctly in greater percentages than any other group.  For “Knowledge of the Bible,” things are a little less clear-cut, but still support my thesis.  In answering questions about the textual content of the Old Testament, atheists performed worse on all five questions than White Evangelicals and Mormons, worse on four out of five questions than Black Protestants, worse on three out of five questions than Jews (although one of those two questions was “What is the first book of the Bible?” and for the other question the scores were tied), and better than White Catholics, Hispanic Catholics, and Mainline Protestants on all five questions.  The Mainline Protestants here don’t perform as expected under my assumptions, but everyone else does.  For the two questions about the textual content of the New Testament, however (“Where was Jesus born?” and “Name the four Gospels”), atheists are outperformed by all Christian groups except Hispanic Catholics.  Atheists also score better than Jews on these two questions.

The “Knowledge of Christianity” section contains the transubstantiation question, salvation by faith question, and the three historical questions about Mother Teresa, Martin Luther, and Jonathan Edwards.  Both White Catholics and Hispanic Catholics answer the transubstantiation question correctly more often the atheists, who in turn answer it correctly more often than any other group.  The answers to the question about salvation by faith don’t really support my thesis, with only White Evangelicals answering correctly more often than atheists and Mormons.  The Martin Luther question is also weird, and no one knows who Jonathan Edwards was.  The Mother Teresa question has White Catholics answering at one point below atheists and Mormons, which is probably not a significant difference.  Hispanic Catholics are, as they were in the two New Testament questions, lower than might be expected.

So if you accept the two assumptions outlined above, the only weird exceptions as groups to the general trend I claim to have identified are White Mainline Protestants, who don’t know the Old Testament as well as atheists, and Hispanic Catholics, who aren’t as familiar with the textual contents of the bible as atheists.

I always self-identify as an atheist, because everyone understands what that means (even if my neighbor did reply to this revelation by exclaiming, “You worship SATAN?!?”), but I think atheism creates a lot of problems for itself that could be overcome by shifting focus to a broader, more ambitious and all-encompassing naturalism.  Focusing on the question of whether God exists leads to the formally-inevitable impasse that believers can’t prove it (because it’s fucking false), and atheists “can’t prove a negative.”  This, to me, indicates a poorly-framed question.  What if we tweak the question, though, to something like, “Does naturalism or supernaturalism help us understand and control our world better?”  In starkest contrast to the deadlock over the question of God’s existence, naturalism has been massively and increasingly systematically vindicated and supernaturalism discredited as explanatory principles.  Also, religious moderates are always willing to throw themselves into the line of fire when specific religions are morally critiqued.  I think they’d be less willing to do so for an across-the-board reaming of supernaturalism in general—and let’s face it, most of the most obnoxious religious doctrines are rooted in the most extravagantly supernaturalistic versions of those religions.  Finally, all this bullshit about theological niceties that atheists don’t understand is neatly mooted by a root-and-branch defense of naturalism and critique of supernaturalism.

Wow that was easy.

15 out of 15.

And yes I am an atheist.

Just took the long version.

32 out of 32.

And yes I am still an atheist.

@wjts

I have some problems with your assumptions, in part because they seem contradictory to me.  If Protestants place a greater emphasis on reading the Bible in context, that would seem to include both OT and NT (and that is true for the two groups known for placing such an emphasis on reading: White Evangelicals and Mormons).  If Catholics place less of an importance on on reading the Bible, then why are their scores on the OT and NT roughly equal just like (while being substantially lower than) the White Evangelicals and Mormons?  Leaving those aside, however:

In answering questions about the textual content of the Old Testament, atheists performed worse on all five questions than White Evangelicals and Mormons, worse on four out of five questions than Black Protestants, worse on three out of five questions than Jews (although one of those two questions was “What is the first book of the Bible?” and for the other question the scores were tied), and better than White Catholics, Hispanic Catholics, and Mainline Protestants on all five questions.

Atheists performed better than White Evangelicals on the question about Moses.  Atheists scored better than Black Protestants on three out of the five OT questions (71 to 83, 62 to 49, 87 to 73, 68 to 61, and 42 to 51).  Atheists performed better than Christians as an entire group on the questions about the OT.  Christians believe in the OT (even if it may be “less important”) and atheists DO NOT.  You seem to be picking and choosing which beliefs are important enough to count as beliefs to show that those who hold them know more as a trend.  The problem with this is that atheists believe all of those things less than the believers, but still in many cases no more.  I’m not gonna play “No True Christian” with you.  Those people who identified as Christians know less than atheists about Christian beliefs.  There are exceptions (White Evangelicals and Mormons), but those exceptions only show your trend if other Protestants and Catholics count less as Christians who hold Christian beliefs.

@25,
The Catholic ritual really is bizarre. You have 1) the commemoration of God’s execution, 2) and then you eat him. WTF?

I am kind of amazed that 45% of Catholics don’t understand the concept of transubstantiation.

They go to Mass at least once a week right?
I mean what do they think happens during the Consecration?
Why do they Genuflect and make the Sign of the Cross only when the Tabernacle is on the altar?
Why is the priest so careful to clean up every last crumb?

32/32

I am on the cusp of Christian and agnostic.  God (as I view Her) doesn’t require me to turn off my brain when I enter a church, but apparently everyone physically in the building does.  So I left a year ago and haven’t missed it (well, except for the music).  I’ve visited a local Quaker meeting, which is surprisingly like the UUs, very welcoming of everyone.

I used to be able to suspend my disbelief and be fine with taking some things on faith.  No longer I’m back to questioning everything. 

And I’m sick of how some preachers take advantage of their non-thinking congregations.  So much evil done in the name of religion.

@bad Jim

I don’t know the stats for that particular question, but from the survey report:

People who took a religion course in college answer about three more questions correctly (out of 32) than those who have not taken a college-level religion course, even after controlling for overall levels of educational attainment. People who attended religious education classes or participated in religious youth groups at least once a week growing up get nearly two additional questions right, compared with those who did so seldom or never. Those who attended private religious schools as a child get an extra 1.7 questions right, compared with those who attended public school. However, there is no statistically significant difference in the scores of those who attended private religious schools and those who attended private nonreligious schools.

I HATED the question about Shabbos. It starts on a Saturday because Friday ends at Sunset. That is just the way the days work. Shabbos starts and ends on Saturday, that’s the whole point of it.

I do wonder, though, what Jews do in places where the sun doesn’t set in the summer and doesn’t rise in the winter. There’s probably some rabbinical law on the subject. My guess is “Don’t live those places.”

@BenYitzhak

The survey certainly seems to have a bit of a Christian bent to it, doesn’t it?  My half-Jewish boyfriend complained about both that and that there were “Bible” questions when I gave him the survey.  He wanted either Septaugint or Torah, although from what I understand, “Genesis” as an answer to the latter may have been as accurate as “Friday” was for Shabbos.

Atheist, a Feminist:

I’m afraid I don’t follow the argument in your first paragraph.  Where is the contradiction?

theists performed better than White Evangelicals on the question about Moses.  Atheists scored better than Black Protestants on three out of the five OT questions (71 to 83, 62 to 49, 87 to 73, 68 to 61, and 42 to 51).

Oops.  You’re right.  I’m not sure how I managed to misread that so badly.  Let me rephrase my argument:

Based on a comparison of answers to the individual questions of the test, White Evangelicals, Mormons, and Jews* are all more conversant with the Old Testament than atheists.  White Mainline Protestants, Black Protestants, White Catholics, and Hispanic Catholics are less conversant with this text than atheists.  All Christian groups (except for Hispanic Catholics) are more familiar with the contents of the New Testament than any non-Christian group.  Catholics are more familiar with the specifics of Catholic doctrine than any non-Catholic group.  Mormons are more familiar with the specifics of Mormon doctrine than any non-Mormon group.  Jews are more familiar with the specifics of Jewish doctrine than any non-Jewish group.

The disparities in familiarity with the Old Testament among Christians can be explained with reference to the histories and beliefs of the different Christian sects.  Catholicism emphasizes the role of the clergy as an intermediary between the Bible and the congregation in contrast to certain strains of Protestantism, in particular contemporary Evangelistic Christianity, which place great importance on individual familiarity with the Bible.  (Something similar is probably going on with the Mormons, but I don’t know enough to say for sure.)  This means that familiarity with the textual contents of the Bible is less central to the religious practices of Catholicism than to Protestantism.  This is more or less reflected in the percentage scores relating to the Old Testament, though White Mainline Protestants have scores that are fairly similar to White Catholics.  Different kinds of Christians assign different degrees of emphasis to different parts of the Bible, and accordingly know more about certain aspects of it than others.  Atheists tend to have a broad-based knowledge of religion.  They may be more familiar with beliefs and practices that are less important to one sect but central to another (i.e., the Old Testament vis a vis Christians vs. Jews).

You were right to say that what I said requires qualification, but I don’t think it’s particularly excessive.

bad Jim, two comments: Having been raised Christian in general and evangelical in particular, I can say with some authority that you’re flatly wrong or at best marginally correct on how they understand/respond to the term “supernatural.”

More to the point, I don’t care that much about the actual terms used, since I’m not talking about a rebranding effort (like the odious “Bright” business from a few years ago), so much as substantively changing the question and debate from God’s existence or Christianity’s goodness to very basic questions such as, for example, how and why science yields knowledge that can be realized in technology, whereas religious doctrine and prayer fail in all those same regards.

@wtjs

If reading the Bible is important to Protestants, then why would they only read half?  The two groups (Mormons and White Evangelicals) that are known for religious study/reading the Bible read the whole thing and score basically just as well on OT as NT questions.  If you are going to play the NT is more important card because of Jesus, then really the Mormons shouldn’t know nearly as much about the OT or NT when compared to their knowledge of the BOM.  That is not the case.
If Catholics didn’t think reading the Bible was important as you proposed, then they shouldn’t mirror the groups (Mormons and White Evangelicals) that find reading the Bible really important more so than the other groups you claim read the Bible more than the Catholics.

This means that familiarity with the textual contents of the Bible is less central to the religious practices of Catholicism than to Protestantism.

My half-Catholic boyfriend thought this was the most ridiculous thing he’d ever heard when I shared it with him, and it doesn’t match up at all with my childhood experiences in Protestant churches.  My one adult experience with non-Evangelical Protestants also showed no real importance on familiarity unless adult Bible Study with what seemed to me to be more of a Cliff’s Notes than a religious text counts as a familiarity with the Bible.

All Christian groups (except for Hispanic Catholics) are more familiar with the contents of the New Testament than any non-Christian group.  Catholics are more familiar with the specifics of Catholic doctrine than any non-Catholic group.  Mormons are more familiar with the specifics of Mormon doctrine than any non-Mormon group.  Jews are more familiar with the specifics of Jewish doctrine than any non-Jewish group.

“All Christians,” though do less well on OT questions (which they believe just as much, even if it is “less important”).  Protestants do less well on “Salvation through Faith Alone” than Atheists (and that is a particularly important, widely discussed, and pretty specific to Protestantism belief).  Atheists identify religious figures better than members of those religions (with the exception of Jonathan Edwards).  There are as many counter-examples to your claim as there are examples especially if we discount your No True Christianing with importance.

Different kinds of Christians assign different degrees of emphasis to different parts of the Bible, and accordingly know more about certain aspects of it than others.

I agree, but aside from the Evangelical and Mormon kinds (who emphasize all of it), I don’t think emphasis breaks down evenly into Catholics and Protestants, which are the categories broken down in the survey.  That being said though, placing importance elsewhere doesn’t mean that the other beliefs are non-existent.  Your claims of importance are unsupported by my personal experiences with Christianity and Christians, but aside from that, there are CANONICAL Christian beliefs that were tested by the survey.  Christians knew some of those beliefs, but OVERALL didn’t know them as well as atheists did.  The Christians, by identifying as Christian, are claiming to believe those things that the survey showed they did not know.  Atheists and Agnostics, by identifying as such, are claiming NOT to believe the things that the survey showed they knew.

I think it is excessive qualification when Christianity is broken up into six categories and atheists, more often than not, know more about Christianity than most of the believers in those six categories.  Your point is valid for Mormons, White Evangelicals, and Jews (less than half of the total number of groups).  If we add back in Atheists and Agnostics, then it is true for 3/8 of the groups.  It seems to me that addressing the unique qualities of Mormonism, Evangelicalism, and Judaism is more useful than making more general claims that “belief” corresponds to knowledge that are not true across the board.  The emphasis placed on religious study in those three groups leads to more correct answers on almost all questions.  Atheists also seem (from the study and anecdata) to put quite the emphasis on religious study, more so than Christians as a whole or more specifically, more so than non-Evangelical Protestants and Catholics.  That tells us nothing about how important particular beliefs are to different groups or that “Believers tend to score better than atheists on questions about their own beliefs, but worse than atheists on questions about the beliefs of others.”

The Courtier’s Reply is a believer tactic that involves the believer telling an atheist that they don’t appreciate religion because they don’t see how complex it is, as if elaborate arguments about angels on the heads of pins somehow is evidence towards the claim that angels are real.

In theory, sure.  The problem is that in practice, it goes more like this:

1. A village atheist makes an argument about religion that rests on premises that are, at best, questionable.

2. Somebody points out that the premises of our village atheist’s argument do not generally hold.

3. The village atheist calls “Courtier’s Reply!”, which is supposed to mean that s/he just won.

Atheist, got an easy 14/15 on the short version - missed the last one as I’m Australian and had never heard of Jonathan Edwards before today.

I am amused to hear that so many Catholics aren’t clear on the transubstantiation thing. People used to get locked up in Papal prison and/or burned at the stake for questioning that one back in the day. I guess they’ve slackened off since that whole Martin Luther business.

Hey! Lay off the insects! What did they ever do to deserve being compared to religion?

The Catholic Church can’t even get its own story straight on transubstiation. See, the thing is that only the essence of the Host is changed, not its ‘accidental’ characteristics, i.e. its physical makeup. The difference between symbolism and this is that in symbolism everyone sees it as a representation (I think that would make Protestants idolaters, but hey, what do I know?) whereas Catholics have hitched their bandwagon to discredited Platonicism and think that the material makeup of the Host isn’t important as long as the spiritual-stuff did get transformed into the actual body of Christ.

Which makes the whole controversy about the kid with Celiac disease a few years back who requested a gluten-free Host completly bogus. Apparently the priest in question didn’t even know his own theology because the argument was that since it *physically* morphs into the flesh of Christ, its gluten content is irrelevant.

I started questioning the faith of my family when I heard the story of Adam and Eve, which I could not take seriously, since I knew that women had the babies, so there was no way man came first. I spent many a Sunday sitting in the pews pissed off that women got such a raw deal in the Bible - it was so clearly unfair that it made me think God must be a colossal asshole.

I come from a big huge Irish Catholic family, and when I stopped going to church (at 18, because my parents were immovable on the subject), my aunts who were nuns told my mother to calm down, because people who question their faith have at least examined it. When I had kids, my mother prayed and cried and because I didn’t have them baptized, but she calmed down eventually - she adores my kids and no longer believes they are going to hell or purgatory or whereever the unbaptized supposedly go.

A friend on FB posted about how few Catholics knew what transubstantiation was. Yup, Christians, your communion is cannibalism. For Catholics it’s magical and actual, the Proddy’s just go with symbolic.  It’s fun talking about this in class and watch students realize that their central ritual is cannibalistic.

I was telling a friend about my visit to Turkey and how outside of Ephesus is a place where the Virgin Mary is rumored to have lived her last days with St. John (I identify as Christian but mostly just to put a convenient, familiar face on God). She misheard me and started (jokingly) to tell me about how that’s all wrong because after the crucifixion, Mary was carrying Jesus’s child and on a boat to Gaul. Realizing quickly she thought I had said Mary Magdalene, I clarified with an emphatic “You know, we’re cool with the fact that we worship a zombie, and that our faith revolves around cannibalism, but incest is a bridge too far, yo.”

“More surprising still (well, to me anyway) is that 81% of Protestants are unaware of the doctrine of salvation by faith alone.”

I had to look that one up.  A lot of Protestant churches like to hammer on the “faith without works is dead” thing.

15/15 and 32/32, for what little it’s worth. I’m an atheist.  The only question that gave me pause was the communion one. Perhaps, I thought, someone had been pulling my leg and it really was symbolic. But then I remembered that this was Catholicism we were discussing and chose the correct answer. Delicious Jeebus!

All this survey really does it establish correlations between respect for a broad education and religious belief (or lack thereof). A broadly educated person (in this case one who can answer general knowledge questions on religion) is more likely to become an atheist or agnostic than a person who is poorly or narrowly educated.

Reaching the same place from the other direction, a religious culture that puts a premium on a broad education (especially about other religions) is going to create more knowledgeable adherents than ones that discount education or demand a narrow one. Mormons are encouraged to learn about other religions as well as their own, the better to carry out their missionary goals—it comes out of the same impetus that drives their genealogical efforts. Conversely, Jews are encouraged to learn about other religions as well as their own for purposes of self-defence.

preying mantis—it’s the fine print. The idea behind protestant evangelism is that you are saved through faith + nothing: that to turn from being a hellbound sinner into one of the elect is simply a matter of accepting Jesus into your heart. It isn’t until later in the church service that the pastor (and that’s if the pastor actually cares about having a congregation that appears even remotely Christian), will start talking about how you are known by your fruits.

Also, I’m willing to bet that a significant number of Evangelical respondents were most often tripped up on the Constitutional questions, even more than questions about other religions. When you’re taught and sincerely believe that “America was founded as a Christian nation,” the wording of the Establishment Clause doesn’t jibe.

Which makes the whole controversy about the kid with Celiac disease a few years back who requested a gluten-free Host completly bogus. Apparently the priest in question didn’t even know his own theology because the argument was that since it *physically* morphs into the flesh of Christ, its gluten content is irrelevant.

Yep. Jesus is rum on french toast if the right man says it is.

32/32 but I guessed at one (Maimonides. The named seemed familiar and I thought “Jewish teacher” so I guessed) .  And yes, I’m a believer, a fairly mainstream Presbyterian.  But I am NOT a fundamentalist and I fully expect that 1) there is an afterlife and 2) I am far more likely to meet Hindus, Moslems, etc*, who were kind, loving people than I will the RW “Christians” who scream hatred in Jesus’s name. 

* I made a bet with an atheist friend who is a kind, loving person, that I’d buy her a beer in heaven, assuming I get there….

32/32, atheist Jew.  I’m bummed there wasn’t any Christian Science questions, since that’s how I won on Jeopardy!

echoing kaleburg at #2, i took the 15 question test from the point of view of a catholic - and even though i knew the answers (i am an atheist), i intentionally got wrong any question that did NOT relate to catholicism (although the reformation question was a close call). my score was 7/15. i am sure you’d expect similar low scores from any general practitioner of christianity, mormonism, judaism, islam, etc.

a proper survey of someone’s knowledge of the tenets of their own religion would necessarily need to screen out questions that have nothing to do with other religions. but there does not seem to be anything to correct for the biases of (1) education level and (2) the fact that non-christians are exposed to a lot of christian culture in the US, making them more likely to know lots of details about the majority faith. i’m sure the same could be said for hindus in indonesia, buddhists in india, muslims in israel, or even christians in utah.

i think there’s a subtle bias present in question #11, whether citing the bible as literature is allowed in schools. it’s the question most people got wrong, even though #10 (teacher-led prayer forbidden in schools) was the one most people got right. my first thought was that it was an erudite issue, perhaps known only to constitutional scholars and school administrators. but the more i think about it, i think it reflects a general, dogmatic belief among a sizable chunk of the population that schools are anti-religion. it has no basis in fact, but its a significant dog-whistle issue for a lot of people and part of the bogus “christianity is under attack in america” theme. heck, i remember how my high school in kansas inadvertently invited a jesus freak to give a talk on avoiding drugs and gangs, and when all the jews and atheists complained, a bunch of christians saw us as attacking them and trying to somehow outlaw their religion. never mind that most of those complaining christians were members of the school’s after school bible study club.

I wonder how the same groups would fare on canonical readings of genre fiction?

1. According to the core DC storyline, on which planet was Superman born?

A) Earth

B) Krypton

C) Kolob

2. In Joss Whedon’s version of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which specific magic occurs when a slayer dies, so that a new one chosen?

A) Vampires rampage until a girl defeats one, making her a slayer

B) The Council of Watchers elects a new one secretly, and casts a spell

C) An ancient spell activates a new slayer automatically as the old one is killed

Feel free to keep going.

“Familiarity bred contempt”

sacundim #73, you should be ashamed to pull that “village atheist” crap this late in a thread about a poll that revealed what a fucking lie it is. MANY atheists are plenty well-informed about religion; in many cases that’s exactly why they became atheists. Here’s an interesting study containing amusing examples of the way expert knowledge of religion- that is, seminary training- actually promotes unbelief:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/Non-Believing-Clergy.pdf

I was an atheist for many years—ironically, with an interest in comparative religion—sort of complementing my interest in fantasy novels at the time.

When I had spiritual experiences, I still rejected, and continue to reject, religions.

I view them as man-made social constructs, designed to get and maintain power. Any true spiritual content was pretty much taken out long ago. There is usually a mystical wing of every religion—Sufis, Zen, various saints, etc—that all describe pretty much the same things, and are all generally suspect to the mainstream power structure, as they are not subject to control. MHO.

I’m amused that most of the discussion is about statistics and the proper reading of the statistical analysis rather than feeding the religios trolls.

This discussion wins the internet!  :D

bad Jim- you probably know this but just in case you don’t it may be of interest to you. There are still practicing Zoroastrians- a few thousand in mostly backwoods areas of Iran, and around 80,000 (Persian-descended) Indian Parsis, who live mostly in and around Bombay (but there’s a worldwide diaspora). I used to be married to a Bombay Parsi. Terrific people- Zoroastrianism is a very this-worldly religion and Parsis love nothing better than a celebration- any excuse will do, including other religions’ holidays- that includes a good dinner (Parsi food is amazingly delicious). They were the intellectual and business elite of western India under the British and spent much of their wealth on charities, many open to all and not just to Parsis.

1. According to the core DC storyline, on which planet was Superman born?

A) Earth

B) Krypton

C) Kolob

Earth! ‘Murka! The Heartland! U-S-A, U-S-A!

/Xtianist

I’m amused that most of the discussion is about statistics and the proper reading of the statistical analysis rather than feeding the religios trolls.

That’s only because the trolls didn’t show up because they’re ashamed of their scores. Even Markuze stayed away with his insane copypasta (though perhaps he’s just back on his meds).

Seriously, though, it is a nice change.

That’s an American Catholic Church problem (the understanding of transubstantiation). I went to Catholic school

USian parochial school graduate here too.  I was taught the explicit doctrine, though.

Earth! ‘Murka! The Heartland! U-S-A, U-S-A!

Bullseye, Gracchus. No one ever asks about Superman’s birth certificate.

So I think its wrong to conclude that atheists know more religious trivia *because* they are atheists.

Good thing Amanda didn’t conclude that then! The conclusion was that many atheists are atheists *because* they know so much about religions.

I HATED the question about Shabbos. It starts on a Saturday because Friday ends at Sunset. That is just the way the days work. Shabbos starts and ends on Saturday, that’s the whole point of it.

Yeah, I grumbled about that too. The whole reason the Sabbath starts after sunset is because that makes it Saturday.

The Courtier’s Reply is a believer tactic that involves the believer telling an atheist that they don’t appreciate religion because they don’t see how complex it is, as if elaborate arguments about angels on the heads of pins somehow is evidence towards the claim that angels are real.

I wonder if there is a similar effect for people who no longer buy into traditional / right-wing economics.  Anytime someone starts wondering how the multitudes of highly-educated economists seem completely blind to very spectacular failures in the system that everyone else can clearly see is messed up, well then people start coming out of the woodwork to explain that tax policy, fincancial risk management, the Austrian / Chicago schools of thought, etc., totally works 100% (except for the times when government screws it up), that any economic question can always be reduced to Supply and Demand, and the only reason the system fails is because voters keep electing people who Don’t Know How Economics Really Works.

I was raised in the American Catholic Church (no Catholic school, luckily, because there wasn’t one) and I knew transubstantiation and had to take CCD classes in both Old Testament and New Testament to get confirmed.  Of course, my confirmation class was something like this:  Oh yeah, I had a choice about confirmation, my parents said I could get confirmed *this* year or *next* year, and if I get confirmed *this* year, I can choose on my own to not go to church next year, so this year it is!

(I went to a “liberal” Catholic Church which didn’t start confirmation until 11th grade.)

Comment #91: Steve LaBonne on 09/30 at 10:59 AM

sacundim #73, you should be ashamed to pull that “village atheist” crap this late in a thread about a poll that revealed what a fucking lie it is. MANY atheists are plenty well-informed about religion; in many cases that’s exactly why they became atheists.

Eh, the poll just tells us that atheists tend to have superficial knowledge of some of the basic beliefs of a wider variety of religions than believers.  That is, they’ve been superficially exposed to a broader range of religions than most believers, who’ve only been exposed to their own, and haven’t thought too hard about it.

And no, I don’t think that it’s true in real life to say that those folks who become atheists because they’re supposedly so well-informed about religion are, in general, all that well-informed.  This is what I’ve concluded based on years of actually having seen countless amateur atheists try to illuminate us all with their knowledge; if you have to bet, you’d place their money that it’s less about actual knowledge and understanding and more about rationalization of their preferences and choices.

Here’s an interesting study containing amusing examples of the way expert knowledge of religion- that is, seminary training- actually promotes unbelief:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/Non-Believing-Clergy.pdf

Yeah, and that’s a whole ‘nother situation, because people like this will generally engage with the religion in a more serious and honest fashion, and are correspondingly far more capable of making good anti-religion arguments than the strawman-prone rank-and-file atheists who think that doing well on a pop quiz about religions and memorizing a list of logical fallacies makes them experts who can expound on the irrationality of religion.

Yeah, I grumbled about that too. The whole reason the Sabbath starts after sunset is because that makes it Saturday.

You guys should really have consulted Frigga and Saturn before applying them to all your lunisolar business. Friday and Saturday nights are for fun before you get too old.

Plus, numbers are for math, right? Precision calculation? So… two thousand and ten years of what, exactly?

Happy belated 5771, btw.

32/32, raised Catholic, now other Christian seeking spiritual home (I like the UCCers and the Quakers).  A lot of these questions have to do with whether you paid attention in high school history class more than religious teaching. But yeah, faith isn’t always based on ignorance.

Gee, Alden - way up at #5 - if they don’t get the basic questions, how in the hell are they going to get the complex ones, which are built on the basics.  e.g. Discuss the problem of evil as illustrated in The Bible.

Comment #101: boring old dude on 09/30 at 12:37 PM

I wonder if there is a similar effect for people who no longer buy into traditional / right-wing economics.  Anytime someone starts wondering how the multitudes of highly-educated economists seem completely blind to very spectacular failures in the system that everyone else can clearly see is messed up, well then people start coming out of the woodwork to explain that tax policy, fincancial risk management, the Austrian / Chicago schools of thought, etc., totally works 100% (except for the times when government screws it up), that any economic question can always be reduced to Supply and Demand, and the only reason the system fails is because voters keep electing people who Don’t Know How Economics Really Works.

This is the perverse flip side of the Duhem-Quine thesis: no amount of observational evidence is logically sufficient to refute a theory, because any observation can be accommodated within any theory by using ad-hoc hypotheses or revising auxiliary assumptions.  A theory can only ever be abandoned if its proponents are willing to be convinced otherwise in the first place; there is no purely logical operation or argument that can “logically force” somebody to abandon it.

In the case you mention (“voters keep electing people who Don’t Know How Economics Really Works”) the trick is that the theory isn’t refuted because the premises did not hold.  (And before somebody calls these theories silly for positing premises that don’t hold, well, consider that scientists do the same thing all the time; e.g., the laws of thermodynamics only apply to “closed systems.”)

And on a totally irreverent note - does taht mean that vegan Catholic is an oxymoron?

Yeah, and that’s a whole ‘nother situation, because people like this will generally engage with the religion in a more serious and honest fashion, and are correspondingly far more capable of making good anti-religion arguments than the strawman-prone rank-and-file atheists who think that doing well on a pop quiz about religions and memorizing a list of logical fallacies makes them experts who can expound on the irrationality of religion.

The strawmen are coming from you. Again, I’ve encountered a lot more atheists who don’t at all fit your strawman stereotype than those who resemble it even slightly.

Personally , I was raised Catholic and have a longstanding interest in medieval history and culture, including a fairly deep acquaintance with Dante. I guarantee I’ve forgotten more about chirch history and theology than the vast majority of believers will ever know. I also was a Unitarian Universalist for years so I have heard plenty about modern “sophisticated” theology. Sophisticated bullshit still smells.

I’m curious about your motives for purveying this kind of tired horsecrap. But what’s certain is that YOUR igonorance is the only kind on display here. So get fucked.

“preying mantis—it’s the fine print. The idea behind protestant evangelism is that you are saved through faith + nothing: that to turn from being a hellbound sinner into one of the elect is simply a matter of accepting Jesus into your heart. It isn’t until later in the church service that the pastor (and that’s if the pastor actually cares about having a congregation that appears even remotely Christian), will start talking about how you are known by your fruits.”

Well, my point was that if you were raised in the faith or have been a reasonably faithful attendee but otherwise incurious—to whit, you never got the “Just sign on the dotted line and you’re heaven-bound” line really pushed on you—it would be pretty easy for a lot of Protestants to think “We need faith and works.  Must be a Papist thing.”.

Comment #71: Atheist, A Feminist on 09/30 at 03:12 AM

Not all that long ago, Catholics were specifically barred from reading The Bible, without a priest to interpret for them, as they might “get it wrong.”  Instead, school children were taught and tested on The Baltimore Catechism, a Defense of the Faith.

omment #76: BlackBloc

Nitpick, but it grated - that would be “Platonism.”

This is the perverse flip side of the Duhem-Quine thesis: no amount of observational evidence is logically sufficient to refute a theory, because any observation can be accommodated within any theory by using ad-hoc hypotheses or revising auxiliary assumptions. This is the perverse flip side of the Duhem-Quine thesis: no amount of observational evidence is logically sufficient to refute a theory, because any observation can be accommodated within any theory by using ad-hoc hypotheses or revising auxiliary assumptions.

Of course, that’s totally irrelevant since scientific reasoning is probabilistic (I would say Bayesian), not deductive. The Duhem-Quine thesis (half-understood) is an old favorite of half-educated anti-science cranks.

In the case you mention (“voters keep electing people who Don’t Know How Economics Really Works”) the trick is that the theory isn’t refuted because the premises did not hold.  (And before somebody calls these theories silly for positing premises that don’t hold, well, consider that scientists do the same thing all the time; e.g., the laws of thermodynamics only apply to “closed systems.”)

Add physics to the list of things you know nothing about. WTF is that last bit even supposed to mean?You’re on a roll.

I got a 15/15, the only question that made me think much was “when does the Jewish sabbath begin?”

Same here. It’s “begin” that’s the key, of course.

Many, maybe most, atheists that I know came to atheism because they learned so much about religion, enough that the logical inconsistencies and overt wish fulfillment aspects of it made it impossible to take it seriously.

Sure, but a lot of us DID take it seriously for awhile. (In my case, until I was about 15.) It comes with the territory when both your parents are Sunday School teachers. In any case, I don’t regret my religious training. Religion is a big part of American life, whether or not you believe, and it pays to know the lay of the land.

“You know, we’re cool with the fact that we worship a zombie, and that our faith revolves around cannibalism, but incest is a bridge too far, yo.”

Ahem - “Noah”.

Biblical knowledge, my little bitches!

I’d bet that the people who score highest over all are ones who went though a seeking stage, and did not simply continue on in the religion of their childhood. Since most atheists were not raised as such they had to come to their belief, or lack thereof, through questioning.

Though there are some atheists who came to it as a rejection of all religion rather than as an affirmative belief.

Comment #113: Steve LaBonne on 09/30 at 01:27 PM

Of course, that’s totally irrelevant since scientific reasoning is probabilistic (I would say Bayesian), not deductive.

Bayesian methods do not establish which propositions are “hypotheses” and which are “evidence,” no more than deductive ones do.

PS I’m not going to respond to any more of this unless you show yourself to be more interested in argument than insult.

Bayesian methods do not establish which propositions are “hypotheses” and which are “evidence,” no more than deductive ones do.

Word salad. Add Bayesian reasoning to the list of things you understand nothing about.

Here is a good summary of the current lack of enthusiasm for underdetermination theses: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-underdetermination/  It’s not 1951 any more.

Like all pomo science-bashers, you have definitely not drunk deep from the Pierian spring.

You dump these turds into every atheism thread. I don’t give a shit what you do or don’t respond to, I’ll call out your ignorance whenever I happen to notice it. You have far less than nothing to contribute to these discussions.

@phylosopher

Not all that long ago, Catholics were specifically barred from reading The Bible, without a priest to interpret for them, as they might “get it wrong.” Instead, school children were taught and tested on The Baltimore Catechism, a Defense of the Faith.

And so no Catholics ever read the Bible just like no Catholics use birth control.  I was baptized Catholic, but raised by a (sort of, I guess) Protestant mother.  I went to Protestant churches and encountered far more people who didn’t read the Bible than who did.  My boyfriend was baptized and raised Catholic and encountered lots of Catholics who read the Bible.  My Catholic relatives all know the Bible better than my Protestant relatives and my first Bible was a gift from my Catholic relatives.  I explained this (in shortened terms) in my comment, but thank you ever so much for telling me that MY ACTUAL EXPERIENCES ARE WRONG since the Church said differently (and the study sure shows that Catholics all know exactly what the Church says, so we know they obeyed).

The point I made was that the claim that Catholics put far less emphasis on reading and knowing the Bible than ALL Protestants is a rather big claim (not supported as of yet by real data, not really supported by the survey in question, and not supported at all by anecdata).  This unsupported assumption was then used to dismiss some of the results that didn’t fit the trend that wjts was attempting to establish.  I took issue with the assumption.

Steve Labonne, you are a person of marginal intellect who consistently rage-posts and loves to insults his imagined intellectual inferiors.

Geez, that comment at 113 was not even wrong.  You simply and completely missed the point of sacundim‘s argument, while ironically reinforcing his/her point</i>!

Now, I disagree with Amanda‘s sentiment largely because religion is an artifact of people, and the problems with religion is a reflection of people’s issues with authority and power and we shouldn’t blame religion for humanity’s willingness to be irrational in all of its forms.

32/32. Atheist, British, and a smartass.

Brought up Quaker, discovered I was an atheist between 10 and 20… I think basically I’m just horrifyingly well-read, since large chunks of it are US-culture orientated.

And on a totally irreverent note - does that mean that vegan Catholic is an oxymoron?

Lovely lady, dressed in blue,
Teach me to be just like you.
If it’s true that God is Three-in-One,
You bore your Father’s only Son.

—Anne Beatts

Ahem - “Noah”.

Ahem, Lot.

I mean, seriously, biatch. There are reasons they don’t want the peasants reading this stuff and asking questions.

32/32.
I’m a nontheistic pagan who did serious study when I was leaving Christianity. I had to see if there really was any part of it that was true for me before I committed myself to leaving.

Ahem, Lot.

I mean, seriously, biatch. There are reasons they don’t want the peasants reading this stuff and asking questions.

Noah AND Lot.

Biatch-fight!

Whatever - your anecdata is granted.  Doesn’t change the fact that MOST Catholics aren’t familiar with the Bible and that it was LONG a position of the church that no one but clergy or those supervised in their reading by same, should read it.  Yes, pre VCII, and perhaps now somewhat relaxed but with Ratzi in, likely moving backward.  So, I’d still say most Catholics don’t know, don’t read The Bible
and to back that:

1) Generally, there isn’t one in the Pews as there is in most protestant faiths - Catholics use a Missal during services
2) Dogma supercedes the Bible - though they will attempt to make a rather twisted interpretive justification to outright contradictions, then claim no contradiction.
3) History: Council of Trent = prohibited books and yes, that prohibition for the most part lasted into the latter half of the 20th century.

and here’s a site that explains it more fully - yes, cross referenced, but can’t send you the hardcopy of the scholarly stuff over teh net waves. 

http://paintingpictures.xanga.com/505737249/item/

shah8, you are an ignorant bore.

Now that we’ve gotten the pleasantries out of the way, do you have a point, or do you just want to be an asshole, as you also routinely do in atheism threads?

Well, I kinda do have a point.  You shouldn’t insult people the way you do.  This is a blog, with comments, and the most valuable thing in it is the conversation.  You aren’t engaging with people, instead, you tell them to shut up and get out—thereby reducing everyone else’s utility.  sacundum isn’t a troll, nor is s/he prone to mendacity.  Stick Rule doesn’t apply, and even if it did, you’re not the one to wield it.

Good description Chet.  First bout with atheism @ 8th grade (Catholic School)  Changed parishes thinking that was the problem - nasty priest.  That lasted for oh…. 4-5 years - good times, until finding out recently that priest there was pedophile.  Then moved and new parish priest in area was worst than the one of my childhood.  SO, looked for Quaker community - no priests needed.  Nearest was miles - so went United Church of Christ for a while OK, but ....still not right feeling.  Hit the academy - atheism, home.

Much thought, reading, discussion through out.  essentially, it was a 20 year or more process.

Geez, that comment at 113 was not even wrong.

Well….the part quoted in comment 113 re: the laws of thermodynamics sure as hell was wrong.  Or, rather, made about as much sense as railing against the commonly accepted 9.8 m/s2 for no other reason than because the calculations only take into account the mass of the earth and the object falling, and not also the mass of everything else in the known world.

(and that’s leaving aside the wrong use of terminology - the first law of thermodynamics does not even concern “closed systems” by definition)

You shouldn’t insult people the way you do.

I was hoping for something more substantive, Miss Manners. Anyway, I remind you that the exchange began with a crude and demonstrably false slur on atheists by your buddy sacundim, of the kind, once again, that we get (unaccompanied by anything resembling cogent arguments) in every atheism thread. One grows tired of such things.

Anyway, I remind you that the exchange began with a crude and demonstrably false slur on atheists by your buddy sacundim, of the kind, once again, that we get (unaccompanied by anything resembling cogent arguments) in every atheism thread. One grows tired of such things.

It’s better than it used to be, at least around here.  Back in ‘08 it was common for any mention of atheism anywhere to bring out the well-meaning religious moderates to say in their very polite way that not everyone who believes “something” is an enemy of progressive politics and would you rude militant atheists please stop being so crude as to put us high-minded liberal believers in the same basket labeled “Religious Nonsense” as those crazy fundamentalists?

I remember several 250+ comment threads that went up in flames from that.

Your experience is in teh VERY recent past it seems.  So have to disagree with you on that one - there are still very strong vestiges of that “not without the official interpretation” going on.  As late as the mid ‘70’s students in Catholic schools were NOT given any Bible instruction - ymmv, but if one looks at the “religion class books” of the time, it’s pretty obvious.  ANd this is contrasted to the rote memorize and get a prize of the “Bible Schools” of many protestant denominations. 

I think your example proves my point - scripture is secondary in the RCC.  Again, most protestant denominations do have a bible in the pews - you might want to ask them why.

IN protestant sects, little, and I mean LITTLE kids are given rewards for rote memorization of BIble verse - ever heard of a Catholic Bible Bee?  Vacation Bible School?  RCC study, in your example, not until junior high - and studied the bible cover to cover in one year?  Nice try.  Look at what a comparable Jewish school does..   

Look HP, you’re denying a whole lot of history.  The Catholic Church repressed non-Latin language bibles in order to retain control of the sacraments (lucrative) and be able to pick and choose biblical emphasis by priests to control congregations.  THough modern apologists will claim it was to “protect” the bible.  Remember Luther et all?  Tyndale?  keeping clerical control (and direct access to the bible was part of that) was what it was about.  People were burned at the stake and yes, I can show you the “official” passages in various edicts and councils that re- and re- enforced that policy.  THat type of multi-generational indoctrination dies hard.  Catholic homes = crucifix w/ dried out palm fronds, last supper picture in dining room - de riguer.  Ceremonial?memorial Bible in a box - perhaps.  Well thumbed one - not so much.

jennygadget, sacundim is correct, given the context of the rest of her post(s).  The point was certainly not that the laws of thermo are invalid because the “premises do not hold”.  The general idea is that reality is irrational (and don’t argue with me, argue with Russell, Godel, et al).  In science, we use rationalized circumstances, such as assuming a “closed system” to get the general idea across.  There is no such thing as an extant Carnot Engine—that’s just an abstract tool.  However, all scientists understand this stuff and account for dirty real circumstances with various physical and intellectual machines.

Sacundim was contrasting that sort of thing with economics, where equivalent ideas such as demand/supply intersections and other Economics 101 materials that often leaves students dumber when they leave compared to when they started.  This happens because many people are quite ideologically committed to a certain vision of their field.  As a result, when things don’t happen as the theory predicts, they don’t abandon the conclusions, just the premises—and the Duhem-Quine thesis explains how easy it is to do that.  Sacundim then said that a weak form of the thesis certainly would apply to even the most rock-hard scientific laws/theories.  We are dependent on keeping lots of knowledge connected to each other—and people willing/able to follow most of it, to retain the utility of the individual things we know.

All in all, yes, it was a jab at the lack of sophistication of some of the participants here, as well as a poke into the thinking that anyone should spend that much of an effort at convincing/mocking someone else who’s lost in their own little world.

Now, Steve Labonne...was that Miss Manners shot a roundabout way of calling me a derogatory term in sexist lenses?  Meh, can’t expect better from you.  Anyways, Sacundim is specifically referring to somones called a village atheist.  That is a subset of a class of people who identify of atheist.  It’s not a slur on people who are atheist any more than Amanda‘s use of NiceGuy(TM) is a slur on men who are nice people.

And geez, it’s not as if the whole comment on Courtier’s Reply isn’t entirely correct.  It’s a KnowNothing argument, and really has no place in intellectual discourse.  People are attracted to this sort of argument for precisely the same reason people are attracted to all sorts of abusive argumentation that denigrate the worth of other people’s knowledge.  I don’t care if it’s faked pictures of fairies on flowers, that sort of thing is illiberal, with habit-forming consequences, and we don’t need it to argue against nasty theists.

Steve Labonne, you are a person of marginal intellect who consistently rage-posts and loves to insults his imagined intellectual inferiors.

Steve, coming from shah8, you ought to take this as a compliment.

Steve, coming from shah8, you ought to take this as a compliment.

Oh, I do, I do.

This is getting increasingly funny!

Not claiming that rote memorization in itself is a good.  But that the later recall that is afforded the adult is an advantage in “knowing” compared to having skimmed a summary or excerpts at a later date.  The rote allows one to distill/contemplate from primary sources.  Because after all, we’re talking religious knowledge here, and which religion knows the bible better, “knows,” not necessarily understands, which is after all a matter of interpretation. 

You do realize that Ratzi abhors VCII?  That there are multiple initiatives to turn back the clock?  That there is a winnowing of pro-VCII’ers going on in the hierarchy and congregations?  The blip of more permissiveness and more primary source knowledge is just that a blip.

Uh, no, they don’t. THe RCC has proven itself very untrustworthy in such things - what moves them is $$$ and power.  See history of BC in the RCC.

Seriously, have an argument as an atheist or agnostic with say, a Baptist and one is likely to get “well in chapter verse the Bible says”  while an RCC’er is much more likely to explain what the CHurch says - different loci of control and authority.

The Courtier’s reply isn’t exactly the best argument, but it is a reasonable one when faced with what appears to be frequently shifting goalposts that seem to happen in theological discussions that switch back and forth between arguing God the miracle of salvation and God the abstract philosophical concept.

It’s not like I’m completely ignorant of the variety of definitions of “God” that people propose. But most of them are irrelevant to why I’m an atheist.

There’s also something of a double-standard in the arguments preceding the Courtier’s Reply. The theist can stand firm in his or her own faith by understanding it in depth. The atheist, on the other hand, must have an individual critique of every single permutation of religion faith, including ones that the theist only uses as a devil’s advocate argument.

To be fair, atheists don’t help much by attacking specific doctrines without making it clear that these are individual examples of a larger disagreement.

Look hp, I’m about out of time for responding to your silliness.  Having a memorized copy of something in your head certainly gives one a better clue in where to research or what to look at than having only read secondary sources.  Familiarity or working knowledge of isn’t gained from textbooks.

You have brought to recall an incident of my latter RCC years.  Teacher was doing another one of the touchy-feely (modern term: values centered) post VCII religion book exercises.  I protested that this was psychology not religion, and that it certainly wasn’t the religion class my parents were paying tuition for.  Bet her, in front of the class, that the kids in that class 7th or 8th grade didn’t even know the ten commandments.  a couple did, most missed quite a few - this “test” was given at the behest of other students, after I left the room and related by them to their parents and it got back to my family. 

I got sent to the principal’s office for being a smart ass - shit, what student wouldn’t have smirked at having seeing a teacher forced to realize that what they were teaching was bullshit busy work? Parents called, story related - I think that was about the time my devout parents decided not to waste their money on any more Catholic Ed and sent me to public h s where I learned more about Catholicism and the history of the church in my LATIN class than I ever had in Catholic school.  And that was the experience of almost all my classmates in h s - the school was heavily Roman and Orthodox Catholic.

To be fair, atheists don’t help much by attacking specific doctrines without making it clear that these are individual examples of a larger disagreement.

I personally always try to make that clear. And I’ve almost always seen other people make that clear… (The people who hate only on specific doctrines tend to have one of their own, in my experience.) Perhaps you have just a very poor breed of atheist where you hang out? :p

I’m not going to claim that religious types don’t often view atheism as a specific attack on their darling precious snowflake religion, but I haven’t generally seen it promoted that way by the less idiotic half of that debate.

I don’t disagree with the majority of what’s been said above, and I am not about to try to defend or explain away the doctrinal illiteracy of the majority of “believers” nor do anything but sharpen my pitchfork and refuel my torch against those who, clueless about their own doctrines, still use them as weapons against others, like “using the Bible” against gay people.

But, this is a site that very often prides itself on clear use of language, and on battling straw men, and making necessary distinctions when trying to make logical arguments.

Let’s be clear that what we are talking about here is doctrinal knowledge, not religious or spiritual experience. Most of these arguments, and the majority of the ones above, are based on the premise that belief in these kinds of doctrines are what is central and definitional about the experience of being religious, and that simply isn’t true.

It is convenient to be able to declare that Christians are idiots because the first two chapters of Genesis flatly contradict each other, or that the physics of the Biblical cosmology are bullshit. And yes, people who claim the Bible is literally true ARE such idiots. But not all Christian experience, nor, I presume, Jewish, Muslim, or any other tradition, is based on adherence to beliefs. For a lot of people, it is the community, the set of working values, and the connection to what they experience as Divine that matter, and they can go for great lengths of time without paying any attention to the fine points of doctrine.

Not because they are hypocrites, but because it isn’t what matters. You can be a good cook without a working knowledge of culinary history or the physics of cooking. You can enjoy music, or even perform music, without getting involved in whatever the current controversies at Juilliard (or Apple Records) are.

Yes, if someone uses their religious beliefs as a weapon against someone else, they damn well better be prepared to justify them, and it they are using them in the secular sphere, they damn well be able to have a secular reason to do so.

But someone can take Communion without knowing what the Catechism says about it if that’s not what’s important to them about doing so. Okay, I think it’s weird that they don’t, but it isn’t up to me to tell them what’s important to them in their faith.

It’s absurd to think someone can’t be a good Jew if they don’t know who Maimonides is.

This whole aspect, about the day to day experience of being religious, and the personal experience of the Divine is certainly as validly open to discussion, debate, and disagreement as any other aspect of religion. But let’s stop pretending that it is THE SAME discussion as the absurdity of some doctrinal claims, because it isn’t. And it only applies to individuals to the degree that THEY claim they believe the unbelievable.

Stop pretending all Christians disbelieve in evolution, or equal rights, or reproductive freedom, because it simply isn’t true.

Anyone who knee-jerks this kind of sweeping statement and then gets riled when someone uses NAMBLA as an anti-gay gotcha or does the equivalent with some whacko claiming to speak for all feminists is out of line.

In the face of shifting goalposts, yes, it is.  However, that is much simpler and more effectively argued specifically as shifting the goalposts or stacking the deck.  Why add terminology?  That’s why I hate it so much.  It’s only *real* utility is the ability to disengage the argument without conceding anything and also implying that the person you’re arguing with is mendacious.  Ross Douthat is mendacious, but rebutting him is much more effective using lots of wit and sarcasm—real effort at thought and expression, not by simply dismissing his counters as Courtier’s Reply and moving on.  In added benefit, it’s hilarious to paint out the way in which Douthat’s ideas could be extended in wild fashions.

But some dude on the street?  “Courtier’s Whaaaa?”  “What’s That?”  You explain it to him or her.  The result is pretty much gonna be “That’s Bullshit 1!1!!”.  It’s much better to stick to the actual argumentation terms and manipulate those to the needed context.

@153: I don’t think it’s particularly intentional or negligent. It’s just that when the debate is going fast and furious on something like Jesus as a historic figure or various flavors of creationism that the bigger picture gets lost.

Another reason I hate “Courtier’s Reply” is that a variant is frequently used against scientists and policymakers that use population statistics for reasons they don’t like, especially favoring sampling over hard counts.

Stop pretending all Christians disbelieve in evolution, or equal rights, or reproductive freedom, because it simply isn’t true.

How about you go first- stop constructing strawmen. I don’t recall any atheist here- or in my real-life experience- saying such things. The OP is precisely about the evidence that atheists as a group are in fact rather well-informed on such matters.

I can work with liberal Christians on specific issues of common concern- though I wish they didn’t so often go a bit too easy on their hard-core co-religionists- but I can’t pretend that “experience of the Divine” is anything other than word salad, with the same epistemological status as “experience of alien abduction”. Nor should I need to pretend.

It’s this kind of need for unearned “respect” of nonsensical views that causes the trouble. Believe whatever the hell you like- and I will defend to the death your right to believe it- but don’t look to me for validation.

Enough hp, I never said understanding - so quit cliaming that I did. 

The silliness is trying to claim that the RCC is just like other Xtian religions re: biblical knowledge/familiarity.

I’m calling bullshit and pointing you to documented church history Coucil of Trent re: bible reading and owning prohibitions, injunctions up through VCII that prohibited Catholics from even going into a church of another faith.  And that’s before we get to mixing religions is miscegenation. 

YOu want to claim that VCII changed all that - sorry you don’t change truly ingrained beliefs by lasses now include some bible study.  But at home the kid is still not exposed to it on a daily basis as other sects are, and the parental and grandparental attitude may well be suspicious or discouraging of it. it.

@phylosopher

Your observations about what Catholics do or do not do without corresponding information on what ALL Protestant Churches do is not contradicting what I said in any way.  The original assumption was that ALL Protestants put greater stock in reading the Bible than Catholics.  CERTAIN Protestants do, but not ALL.  The Protestants who do (for the most part) are Mormons and White Evangelicals.  This is shown by their great performance on the survey.  Catholics did better than other Protestants on some of the Bible questions, and knew their OT as well as their NT just like the Protestant sects who spend a lot of time reading the Bible.

I think your example proves my point - scripture is secondary in the RCC.  Again, most protestant denominations do have a bible in the pews - you might want to ask them why.

As I said before (more than once), it isn’t there for reading either.  At most, it is for pulling out and following along with the bit the pastor reads in the sermon.  Why is this necessary?  Because there is pretty little familiarity with the Bible among the congregation.  My experience is Protestant churches (lots and lots of different ones) is that if they weren’t Mormon or Evangelical, they didn’t read the Bible.

You can keep arguing that Catholics don’t (which is not strictly speaking true, but not completely wrong either), but that means nothing about the earlier assumption because
non-Evangelical non-Mormon Protestants don’t read it either.

The assumption that I responded to was not all about Catholics and I responded to it as if it were not all about Catholics, and you responded to that as if it was.  Nothing I said originally was contradicted by your “fact” (it wasn’t even a argument), but yet you felt the need to respond.  I will not be responding to you again (at least in this thread, although I avoid you in others as well) because you aren’t really discussing the issue and you are a jackass.

You know, all this arguing about who knows what religions better is interesting, but the thing I find to be SO DISTURBING for public policy is those questions about separation between church/state (in terms of education) and how few people (of any stripe) got them right.  It’s the (false) belief that no one can even mention a religious book or say their own little private prayer in schools that riles up the religious right to push their noses into public education even more. (“war on christianity” anyone?)

Regarding the issue of education accounting for differences or not, formal education is not a perfect proxy for how much one reads, and so I wonder whether atheists/agnostics simply read more regardless of level of education. I don’t know if that’s actually the case, but I do know that I got the Jonathan Edwards question only because I happen to be currently reading a book about the evolution of fundamentalism in America.

In the case you mention (“voters keep electing people who Don’t Know How Economics Really Works”) the trick is that the theory isn’t refuted because the premises did not hold.

How is this any different from No True Scotsman?

“Of course the policy didn’t work, no Real Economist would have ever written such a policy.  Had the esteemed Dr. So-and-so written it it would have included provision for [whatever it was that the policy’s failure is attributed to].”

“Of course the market for Widget X failed, it wasn’t really a free market due to [mumble mumble referring to some effect that is only visible AFTER a market failure].”

This Atheist got all the questions right, too.

I can’t speak for other Atheists, but I believe that my knowledge comes from 1) my Lutheran college education (with the required religion classes, one of which went through the Bible from cover to cover) and 2) the extensive religion shopping I did before settling on no religion at all.

@ Atheist, A Feminist.  The discussion, as I read it, was about a religious survey on which atheists did surprisingly well compared to theists.  The questions seem to be quite a bit about Biblical knowledge.  I pointed out that historically, the RCC has had many prohibitions against reading the Bible, against knowledge of other faiths, etc.  for centuries (and whether those prohibitions say exactly what people think they say, or are still in force, what’s important is the cultural belief that remains in the pews.)  ON top of all that - what- you’ve all forgotten why there are other sects, what protestant means, etc?

The prohibitions and the lack of evidence that something has changed- no pew bibles - is going to keep people from reading the Bible as readily as in those denominations that emphasize bible knowledge.  Hence RCC’s would likely do less well on the test.

Really, I can only respond inside your parameters? Somebody better tell Amanda to put those rule sup on the front of every post.  What’s the matter you and hp just looking for a chance to argue with me?  “The sky is blue”—c’mon I KNOW you want to say it’s green… Well, I’ll join you in your childishness - can’t resist pushing your buttons ... did you just wake up on the bitchy side of the bed this a.m.?

Jeez…

I think your example proves my point - scripture is secondary in the RCC.  Again, most protestant denominations do have a bible in the pews - you might want to ask them why.

There are Misselettes.  The Misselettes are monthly booklets that follow along with the entire Mass.  The precise readings for each week—one each from the Old Testament, Gospels, and Acts of the Apostles—are in the booklet, along with responsorial psalms and the proper responses.

There’s no time to read the entire Bible during Mass.  It’s a ceremony to prepare you to receive the Eucharist.  It works its way though the Bible during the year in a Reader’s Digest manner.

There are usually Bible study groups that meet at the church during the week.  There’s CCD for public school Catholic children and parochial school with daily religious classes (if not masses—we only had them twice a week when I went).

The Catholic hierarchy, especially the current bunch, really do prefer a quickly obedient, blindly following lot, but that’s not the dogma.  As a teen I used to be grateful that I’d been confirmed at 11, since there’s no way I could agree to the entire profession of faith as even a young adult.

the thing I find to be SO DISTURBING for public policy is those questions about separation between church/state (in terms of education) and how few people (of any stripe) got them right.  It’s the (false) belief that no one can even mention a religious book or say their own little private prayer in schools that riles up the religious right to push their noses into public education even more. (“war on christianity” anyone?)

True story. It’s not just the religious fanatics who are unclear on that stuff, too. A generally well-educated atheist friend of mine also wasn’t sure about either of the religion-in-the-classroom questions. And I only got them right thanks to a combination of optimism (”surely teachers can’t lead prayers!”) and experience (my high school philosophy class read bits of the Bible specifically as “literature”*—which was somewhat objected to by a few Christians, in fact.)

*this included the only rational discussion I’ve ever heard of the actual message in the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, not-so-coincidentally. Oh FSM, I wish that more people picked up on the hospitality=good/rape=bad aspect, and that fewer people obsessed about the man-sex-that-didn’t-actually-happen aspect. 9.9

Ok, on the general scripture-as-secondary-in Catholicism claim, it is true that the bible is not the exclusive authority in Catholicism, traditionally being balanced by mystical traditions at the clerical and folk levels. The balance between the three shifts from era to era. (This is not to say it’s ever been particularly, y’know, good, or for that matter true, but I digress.)

That said, that this example of “Catholic churches don’t have bibles in pews” thing seems to be a recurring talking point is odd to me. Yes, I grew up entirely after VCII, and yes, my experiences are not statistically significant, but I attended a church in West Palm for a decade, aside from attendance at another church in Ontario when we were visiting my grandmother in the summer. In undergrad, I semi-regularly attended another church in Jupiter, and made single visits to a couple of other churches in the area. In Cambridge, I less regularly attend yet another one. And I have never, as far back as my memory goes, ever been inside a Catholic church that didn’t have bibles in the pews. The one down the street from me often doesn’t bother to distribute missals for the off-peak masses I’ve attended, but the bibles are always there.

Not statistically significant, but also unlikely that so many coincidences would line up in my favor if most Catholic churches didn’t have bibles in the pews.

Not sure why I felt the need to comment on that. I could probably have written a much shorter post: phylosopher, your descriptions of why an intuitive prediction of which sects would do better on this test—a prediction that isn’t actually borne out by the data very well—reads like this unholy marriage of Max Weber and Jack Chick. You’re saying things that aren’t true, and acting like a misogynist jerk while doing so. That you perceive offense as “childish” suggests that either a) you’re trolling, or b) you’re, well, a misogynist jerk. Or a method actor training to play a misogynist jerk.

So, um, I’d prefer you stop.

@171 Very glad to hear someone point the Sodom reading as anything other than a fringe hippie theory made up by Communist Feminist Muslim Hippies. This has never struck me as being a difficult or counter-intuitive reading. Sodom, a city destroyed for its wickedness, was populated entirely by homosexuals who happened to be rapists.

So clearly, the “gay” part was the difficult part.

(In anticipation of critiques that the threat of raping men is treated as exponentially worse than the threat of raping women, I can only say that misogyny is a sufficient explanation for this, as a quick study of what did and didn’t constitute “rape” at the time elucidates nicely.)

Byronic Commando Suggest then you either get the eff off the Intertubes or find someone who gives a shit about the preferences of a virtual world avatar.  And really ironic.  I’ve been at an RCC CHurch for a relatives funeral today - about the only time I choose to go into one.  Sure enough, in the pews, hymnals “Gather ” and Flor y Cantos. They’ve stopped doing missals (or Missalettes) at all because of the high printing costs.  Sorry, not a Bible in sight in the pews.  OTOH, went to an AME for a wedding last week.  Lower income area.  Bibles at the end of every pew in addition to hymnals and some in the congregation brought their own.  this is recent, and at least in this neck of the woods, has been my experience in for oh, about twenty-five years now in various denominations. 

Caren, I’ve never suggested that the Bible presence would be for reading during mass/services - heck, when I attended them, a large portion of the congregation used that time to say the rosary.  What I’m suggesting is that having a Bible in the pews/hands of the individual congregants versus reading selected parts (or having them read to you) confers a different permission.  And historically, that permission has been denied in the RCC.   

As I said up top, ymmv.  and some possibilities as to why -  certainly geography and class differences.  Also different priestly orders will have a different focus - if one were in a school staffed or run by Jesuits or a similarly cynical/intellectual order - very likely one would have had a bit more in-depth, dare I say “better” theological education.

I got the Jonathan Edwards one wrong because I was thinking of that TV psychic with the crazy eyes. But I knew it wasn’t Billy Graham.

That was the only one I had trouble with, but I did get it right.  But it was a 50/50 proposition because I knew the first great awakening happened centuries ago so it couldn’t be Billy Graham.  I noticed that only 11% of people got it right.  Random guessing should produce 33% and if you knew when the great awakening was, it would produce 50%.  Were people choosing Billy Graham because it’s the only name they recognized?

@Jeff R.

From the write-up at the site, they tried to discourage guessing and allowed “Don’t Know” as an (incorrect) answer.  So, I suppose people heard Great Awakening, thought “huh?” and didn’t guess.  (I didn’t see the percentages of “Don’t Know” for each of the questions, though, so I could be completely wrong.)