American Religious Knowledge

[Jude]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rel_religious_literacy_poll

I find these results absolutely mindblowing, in particular that:

Atheists and agnostics scored highest, with an average of 21 correct answers, while Jews and Mormons followed with about 20 accurate responses. Protestants overall averaged 16 correct answers, while Catholics followed with a score of about 15.

While it isn't a falsehood that Atheists/Agnostics did best on the test, the differences between them and Mormons/Jews are not statistically significant, so making the claim that they have the most knowledge is probably unfair, but I find it interesting that Christians of the non-Mormon persuasion lagged way behind -- to the tune of a little over 2/3s as the top scorer while they sat at under 50%, especially when Atheists and Agnostics only have knowledge of religious matters secondarily (as it isn't part of their creed).

What do you attribute this to?

I think it has to do with fundamentalism -- Protestants and Catholics tend to be a lot more relaxed about their faith, on average, than others in my estimation.

[DarklingAlice]

My initial thoughts:
-Given the sorry state of the average Americans education and knowledge it isn't surprising that their religious knowledge is sub-par as well. There was also a section of general knowledge questions, and success on those was correlated with success on the religious questions, which was further correlated with education level.

-Even though atheists did best, an average of 21/32 is not exactly an impressive performance.

-It is not surprising that Protestants and Catholics were worst. Remember this is a test of world religious knowledge. The more prevalent your religion is the less likely you are to worry about or be considerate of others' religions. So while Protestants did actually do well on the questions about Christianity (A little worse than Mormons, a little better than Catholics) they were clueless about religions outside their own.

-The following quote is not quite true:

especially when Atheists and Agnostics only have knowledge of religious matters secondarily (as it isn't part of their creed).

The vast majority of atheists are not born into atheists families, the same with agnostics. This means that at some point they make a choice to leave their religion. Usually this comes as a direct result of legitimately investigating their religion and the alternatives. I think that in large part explains the success of atheists and agnostics.

[Avi]

I'd be interested to see how well I could do on this test. >_>  It's interesting, to be sure.

[DarklingAlice]

A little more in-depth info:
http://www.pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx

[Diabolus Lupus]

http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge

Here's, I guess, a shortened version of the survey. It's 15 questions.

I got 87% on it.

[MasterMischief]

On another board, someone posited that the vast majority of 'Christians' are once a week Christians and that those that actually practice Christianity would score better.

[Oniya]

In regards to the fairly high score from the Atheist/Agnostic sector, could there be a correlation to the fact that many in those categories have spent time trying other Paths before finding that none fit?  I could also theorize that a factor in the lack of knowledge about other religions could be the rigidity with which those individuals hold their own beliefs - i.e., the 'my way is the only way, so why bother learning any other way' school of thought.

[Saerrael]

Interestingly, from that test, the only answers I had wrong were about what is permitted under US law. I fail to see how that is relevant to me as not living there...? *raises a brow*

[Serephino]

Scored 100% ;D   

Though the low scores of Christians don't come as a shock to me.  Judging from the ones I've met, most of them go to church, and maybe have read a few passages.  Most don't know what's in their own holy book, and they should.  Just sitting through a church service once a week isn't enough in my opinion.

There could be a number of reasons Atheists and Agnostics scored better, two of them were already mentioned.  Another is that some Atheists seem to take great pleasure in trying to disprove religion, and if they entered a debate without knowing what they were talking about it would only make them look like an idiot. 

I didn't see any mention of Hindus, Buddhists, and Pagans being a part of this study.  I found that to be rather disappointing.     

[Saerrael]

I didn't see any mention of Hindus, Buddhists, and Pagans being a part of this study.  I found that to be rather disappointing.     

I found that disappointing as well, yes.

[MasterMischief]

Are you suggesting there is a bias towards Abrahamic religions?  The Devil, you say!

[Oniya]

The link that Darkling Alice provided didn't even mention Islam.

[MasterMischief]

Heads back to his Taoist thread before anymore of his sarcasm can seep into his keyboard.

[Synecdoche17]

14 out of 15 - the only one I got wrong was the question about the preacher in the First Great Awakening, and even that I had down to a 50-50.

Knowing others' religion also depends a lot on where you live - local religious diversity may have a tremendous impact on your understanding of theology. For instance, my best friend in grade school was Jewish, my best friend in junior high was Buddhist, my friends in high school included a Hindu, a Muslim, an atheist, and a Lutheran. Had I been raised in a less diverse environment than the San Francisco Bay Area, it's quite probable that I wouldn't have met anyone but fellow Catholics for a long time.

[DarklingAlice]

I didn't see any mention of Hindus, Buddhists, and Pagans being a part of this study.  I found that to be rather disappointing.

Yeah, it really is a disappointment that the random survey provided an accurate sampling in accordance with its goal and proper investigative procedure rather than presenting data willy nilly. Seriously, the data tables are right there. A statistically insignificant portion of Americans responded that their faith was Hindu or Buddhist. Pagans are included in the 1% who answered "something else" to the following.

What is your present religion, if any? Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox such as
Greek or Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, something else, or nothing
in particular?
(INTERVIEWER: IF R VOLUNTEERS “nothing in particular, none, no religion, etc.” BEFORE
REACHING END OF LIST, PROMPT WITH: and would you say that‟s atheist, agnostic, or just nothing
in particular?)

Did you miss the nice title in big bold letters? U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey Meaning that the beliefs of insignificant percentages of the U.S. population were not included.

The link that Darkling Alice provided didn't even mention Islam.

Actually the link I posted gives their data tables that clearly show that 1% of people surveyed were Muslim.

[Oniya]

I'm confused then - the page I got to from this link

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

showed the following religious paths in the first two charts:

Christian
  Protestant
    White evangelical
    White mainline
    Black Protestant
  Catholic
    White Catholic
    Hispanic Catholic
  Mormon
Jewish
Unaffiliated
  Atheist/Agnostic
  Nothing in particular

Below that was a chart about What the Public Knows about Religion (not divided by religious affiliation), a chart about Knowledge of Religion in Schools, and Education Linked with Greater Religious Knowledge. 

[Vekseid]

I forgot that Jewish Sabbath begins at sundown, so I only got 14/15 myself.

I didn't see any mention of Hindus, Buddhists, and Pagans being a part of this study.  I found that to be rather disappointing.     

You need to poll enough of a group to draw from a statistically significant sample. From a group of ten, the standard deviation is 32% - a rather enormous quantity. You'd want at least a hundred to make empirical claims about them.

There's also the issue with this test's weight towards Judaic religions - it's not particularly fair, for example, to make a question about Moses to a Confucian or Taoist without also discussing Lao Tse or Confucious, for example - it doesn't necessarily reflect on their awareness. Conversely, asking too many questions can bore people, which will also skew things against them.

[DarklingAlice]

@Oniya
I was linking to a study, not just Section I of a study (I just thought that was a good place to start ^_^). I did not think to link to every page individually. From the page I linked:

The remainder of this report is divided into two parts. Section II, “Who Knows What About Religion,” focuses on differences between religious groups in eight domains of knowledge: the Bible, Elements of Christianity, Elements of Judaism, Elements of Mormonism, World Religions, Atheism and Agnosticism, the Role of Religion in Public Life, and Nonreligious Topics. Section III, “Factors Linked With Religious Knowledge,” describes factors associated with religious knowledge. Details about the survey’s methodology are available in Appendix A, and the full wording of all questions and topline survey results are provided in Appendix B.

COMBINED RESULTS FOR Q.20-Q.21V [from Appendix B]
[truncated for ease of reproduction]
Protestant - 52%
Catholic - 24%
Mormon - 2%
Orthodox - *
Jewish - 1%
Muslim - 1%
Buddhist - *
Hindu - *
Unitarian - *
Other faiths - 1%
Unafiliated - 16%
Don't know/Refused (VOL.) - 1%
*statistically insignificant sample size

[Oniya]

Ah - that explains it.  I completely missed the table of contents.  *facepalm*

[Salamander]

Hmm...I took the 15-question version and got all of them right. 100%- yay!

And I'm a hardline atheist who was brought up atheist by atheist parents. I certainly didn't learn anything about the bible from them. Being English, I had to take Religious Education at school, but I managed to get myself demoted to the lowest RE set for playing poker in class. The lowest RE set was continual chaos- I just sat at the back of the class with my friend Mark (who had also been demoted for playing poker) and we carried on with the cards. Consequently, I didn't learn a damn thing in RE lessons either. I guess that I picked up most of my knowledge of religion from studying History at Uni, and then subsequently from arguing with religious types. I also went through a phase of being interested in comparative religion, so I've read stuff by Joseph Campbell (for example). Much later on, I studied Psychology and Philosophy, and I suppose some of that is relevant too.

Incidentally, I'm not surprised that religious types score so low on average. In my time on-line I've argued with plenty of Christians who knew much less about their own religion than I do. I think that theres a sort of defence mechanism at work there. For example: a full knowledge of OT atrocities would make it much more difficult to believe in a benevolent God; a full knowledge of all of the negative things that Jesus supposedly said about families would make it very difficult to see Christianity as supporting 'family values'. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Thank you for the back handed comment Salamander.  Of course if someone knew something about their religion they obviously wouldn’t believe in that religion.  All those people must surely be ignorant about their religion not to suddenly discover they are wrong and flock to atheism.   Seriously?  Study some human behavior or at least try not to let your bias guide you to an answer which reflects very arrogantly on you.

Minorities always know more about the majority.  While I cannot think of the name for the theory it was developed after watching servants interact in someone’s household.  The Master did not know the duties of the servant, but the servant knows their duties and the duties of the Master.  No, I am not calling non-Western or Christian traditions servants to Christians those are simply the words the theory utilized.  The meaning is that a minority will always learn about the majority because they are constantly in contact and conflict with that majority.  The majority conversely does not have to interact with those different groups or if they do can ignore or overlook them because the majority has what it wants.  Even their own religion, discussed with like minded individuals, is not fully learned because they do not have to.

How often have people said in this forum that through debate and conflict they learn?  Same principle here.  Minorities beliefs, such as atheism, are more likely to debate and learn from the conflict.  Whereas the majority belief, such as Catholicism, is not so likely to debate or if they do debate they have no reason to pursue an absolute victory. 

Further illustration of this point can be found in politics.  The amount of American people that know anything about foreign policies is laughable at best.  Americans do not know the presidents, leaderships structure or political appointments of many other countries including their neighbors.  Other countries though know who the president of the United States is and a lot of times also know the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and Speaker of the House.  Why?  Because Americans feel as if they are on top and have no need to know what is going on “beneath” them.  The influence of the United States causes other countries to be aware of the leadership in the United States and so they learn out of necessity.

The numbers really aren’t surprising at all and certainly aren’t a reflection of blissful ignorance.

[Salamander]

Thank you for the back handed comment Salamander.  Of course if someone knew something about their religion they obviously wouldn’t believe in that religion.  All those people must surely be ignorant about their religion not to suddenly discover they are wrong and flock to atheism.   Seriously?  Study some human behavior or at least try not to let your bias guide you to an answer which reflects very arrogantly on you.
...
The numbers really aren’t surprising at all and certainly aren’t a reflection of blissful ignorance.

I'm not going to mince my words here...

I've spent plenty of time and effort studying human behaviour, thanks. And I stand by what I said. I think that if Christians (for example) really knew more about what their Bible and their theology says, then many more of them would turn away from religion. Especially if they spent the time to reflect on what they'd learned, for Christianity is a religion of many contradictions.

For example, Christians claim to worship a God of Love. Indeed, one of the qualities traditionally attributed to the Christian God is perfect benevolence- God is said to be wholly and perfectly good. And yet this very same God condemns souls- sentient beings- to eternal torment, a fate infinitely worse than mere death or non-existence. And he does this on the grounds that they don't believe in him. There are of course other reasons for souls being condemned to hellfire, but non-belief is, according to Christian theology, a sure way to damnation. And since the vast majority of people who have ever lived are not Christian, this makes Hell a very crowded place.

I would ask you to consider this: any God who condemns the vast majority of people who have ever lived to everlasting torment is not and cannot be benevolent. Quite the opposite- such an entity is as utterly evil as anything that human beings have ever been able to conceive of. Especially when one considers that this God is also putatively omniscient, and has therefore known that about the mass condemnation to hellfire thing since the beginning of time. Indeed, if we follow Christian theology, then God created Man in full knowledge that he would subsequently be condemning millions upon millions of souls to permanent and everlasting torture.

It is very fortunate that this malevolent monster is a fairytale rather than a reality.

[DarklingAlice]

The two of you really should make your own thread if you want to get into this. The purpose here is to discuss the survey.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I have no interest in debating atheist and religious beliefs in this thread and do not understand why someone has decided to do so.  My own post offers a theory to support and interpret the result of this survey and that theory is an established one.  I also provided alternative, non-religious examples to support my observations and interpretations.  Please do not toss me into the same arena as someone that offers no backing or theoretical basis for their arguments.

[Salamander]

In all honesty, I'm not especially keen to argue about theism/ atheism either. I'll expand my original point and hopefully that will make the purpose of my last post clearer.

People like to have consistent cognitions (ideas, beliefs etc). Sometimes, however, stuff happens and they find themselves in the position of believing contradictory things- in the psychological literature this is called cognitive dissonance. One example of cognitive dissonance might be this:

Joe considers himself to be an excellent driver. But then one day he doesn't pay attention, and he causes an accident, injuring a pedestrian. He is now in a position of cognitive dissonance- he thinks that he's a good driver, but he also knows thats he's injured someone through poor driving. The two are contradictory.

Okay...so there are a number of ways through which people can eliminate the dissonance. For example, one way for Joe to resolve things would be to decide that the accident wasn't his fault- then he could carry on thinking that he was a good driver. Another would be to revise his opinion of his own driving. A third might be to tell himself that all good drivers occasionally make mistakes, and he was unlucky. And so on.

However, the most effective way of dealing with cognitive dissonance is simply to avoid getting into the dissonant situation to begin with. Avoid inconvenient facts. Don't examine your beliefs too rigorously. Don't think about the logical consequences of your worldview. And it is this tactic that I think is adopted by many Christians. If they did take a long hard look at what they believe in, then they'd find plenty of contradictions. For example, the Loving God/ Torturer God contradiction that I describe above.

Thus the survey findings. Christians are avoiding knowledge of their religion as a way of preserving their beliefs. Greater knowledge would bring with it the threat of cognitive dissonance, which is something that people generally wish to avoid.

[DarklingAlice]

I have no interest in debating atheist and religious beliefs in this thread and do not understand why someone has decided to do so.  My own post offers a theory to support and interpret the result of this survey and that theory is an established one.  I also provided alternative, non-religious examples to support my observations and interpretations.  Please do not toss me into the same arena as someone that offers no backing or theoretical basis for their arguments.

I was actually taking offense at your needless personal characterizations of Salamander that partake of ad hominem and serve absolutely no purpose in your argument. Religion is a passionate subject, but that sort of thing tends to be inflammatory and completely unhelpful. You are each offering a hypothesis (and since neither of you has evidence I don't see that either has a stronger base). Actually hypotheses concerning two separate parts of the theory. You are speaking to why Christians know so little about other religions. Salamander is talking about how little they know about their own.

As for your comments about the survey:

Further illustration of this point can be found in politics.  The amount of American people that know anything about foreign policies is laughable at best.  Americans do not know the presidents, leaderships structure or political appointments of many other countries including their neighbors.  Other countries though know who the president of the United States is and a lot of times also know the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and Speaker of the House.  Why?  Because Americans feel as if they are on top and have no need to know what is going on “beneath” them.  The influence of the United States causes other countries to be aware of the leadership in the United States and so they learn out of necessity.

The numbers really aren’t surprising at all and certainly aren’t a reflection of blissful ignorance.

I do think there is some merit in this theory in explaining why Christians do not know much about world religion, however it fails to account for the poor performance of Christians on the questions of Biblical knowledge and questions concerning the history of Christianity (e.g. founder of the Reformation, salvation through faith, the names of the four gospels, etc). As presented here. It seems that most Christians are as ignorant about their religion as most Americans are about their own politics (also from the study: only 59% of those surveyed can correctly name the Vice President <_<). What explanation would you give to this?

[Trieste]

I don't want to have to lock this thread because people are arguing about not arguing. Step back, take a breath, go back to chattering about the survey.

Thanks.

[Salamander]

To comment on what DarklingAlice says:

It seems to me that its easy enough to explain why believers of one faith should know very little about other religions. If you really honestly believe that your particular religion is the revealed truth, then there isn't much of an incentive to investigate the alternatives- these are at best inferior or garbled versions of your own faith, and at worst the work of the forces of darkness. However, there is (at least on the surface) a huge incentive to find out about your own religion- its the revealed truth, after all, and the path to bliss in the afterlife. So why Christians know so little about Christianity is precisely the sort of question that needs explaining.

I agree that my cognitive dissonance hypothesis is just that- a hypothesis. Its consistent with the facts, and its based on a well supported theory in Psychology. There may be alternative hypotheses which also fit the facts and have theoretical support, but I must confess that I can't think of any right now.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I return what is given to me which I consider Salamander’s response to be inflammatory.  Take notice that his explanation of his position made two posts later is better thought out, more concise and far more illuminating regarding his view point.  He did not need to begin calling people ignorant to make his point regarding cognitive dissonance.  Also I did propose the application of this theory to the reason why Christians would not know as much about their own religion as others.

The problem with using cognitive dissonance here is that within the article it states that those who attend services weekly and consider religion important to their lives scored higher.  Following the train of thought that Salamander has proposed this should be opposite.  Also note that on questions focused on Christianity, Mormons scored the highest followed by white evangelicals.  Atheists scored the highest overall on the questions, but not on those particular to Christianity.  Also note that Mormons scored only one point lower than Atheists.  That a religious group would be that close to follow behind Atheists should be a surprise if using this theory for framework.

The greatest predicator, according to the article, is education level not religious affiliation.  Religious affiliation should have an inverse relationship with these scores if cognitive dissonance was evident, making it a larger predicator.  Also for Cognitive Dissonance to be of use here, there would have to be information about how other religions cope with their beliefs in order to reduce the dissonance. 

[Avis habilis]

Pro tip: "he started it!" won't fly.

Play nice.

[Salamander]

The problem with using cognitive dissonance here is that within the article it states that those who attend services weekly and consider religion important to their lives scored higher.  Following the train of thought that Salamander has proposed this should be opposite.  Also note that on questions focused on Christianity, Mormons scored the highest followed by white evangelicals.  Atheists scored the highest overall on the questions, but not on those particular to Christianity.  Also note that Mormons scored only one point lower than Atheists.  That a religious group would be that close to follow behind Atheists should be a surprise if using this theory for framework.

The greatest predicator, according to the article, is education level not religious affiliation.  Religious affiliation should have an inverse relationship with these scores if cognitive dissonance was evident, making it a larger predicator.  Also for Cognitive Dissonance to be of use here, there would have to be information about how other religions cope with their beliefs in order to reduce the dissonance.

Church attendance is an obvious extraneous variable here. The more someone attends church, the more sermons they hear, so the more religious knowledge they get. I agree that in order to validate the cognitive dissonance hypothesis- or indeed any hypothesis that attempted to explain the survey results- you'd need additional research. For example, the cognitive dissonance hypothesis would predict that believers would avoid learning about certain inconvenient sections of the Bible (e.g. the parts that detail David's divinely-mandated massacre and rape spree through the Holy Land). Thats something that could be investigated, but in practice its unlikely to happen.

[Oniya]

From personal experience (and by extension, the experience of the entire parish I used to live in), there are certain parts of the Bible that the average church-goer does not get exposed to.  I attended two churches from before 'the age of reason' (somewhere under 7 - I remarked on all the 'plus signs' in the church) until after I moved out of my parents' home.  I did take the effort to read the Bible on my own, and a large volume of those 'inconvenient' sections (as well as a large number of Psalms, many of the heroic stories like Ruth and Esther, and some if the interesting imagery in Song of Solomon, Ezekiel, and Revelations) just isn't mentioned in the course of the year. 

Unless the parishioner takes the initiative to read it on their own, they won't hear about it.  It's not that the average believer avoids learning about it, but more that they haven't been spoon-fed it.  I can't speak on how many of the other parishioners had actually read the Bible cover to cover, but the pastor didn't go out of his way to mention these sections.

[Salamander]

Thanks Oniya, thats really very interesting. Having never been a believer, its the sort of thing that I'd have no way of knowing without being told.

From what you've said it sounds as if theres a sort of collective cognitive dissonance at work here. Christian churches only emphasise certain parts of the Bible and the bits that get omitted include the inconvenient sections. None of which is in the least bit surprising.

[DarklingAlice]

This would be supported by the study results showing that a minority of Christians are capable of identifying Job. Most likely due to less emphasis on the Old Testament, and less emphasis on the more difficult portions of the text. I can't recall if the study specifically examines those who attend church regularly but do not read the bible vs. those who read the bible regularly but do not attend church. I imagine those would be telling demographics.

[TheVillain]

Just throwing that I used to be a fundie myself, then went Apathiestic/Atheist. I still get a chuckle out of people who claim "Atheists would all convert to Christianity if they actually read the Bible", when I know far more people who went Atheist because they actually read the Bible then people I knew who were Atheists that converted after reading it.

[Shoshana]

I took the 15 question version of the test and got 100%. So another Jew gets a good score, lol. But I majored in Comparative Religion--so it would have been really pathetic if I'd missed any of these questions. :P

I wonder what happens when you get multiple identites, however? If you're a Jewish atheist, did you have to choose one identity or the other?  ???

Meanwhile, I agree that this should have been a more comprehensive test, with more questions not only on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, but also on contemporary Paganism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shinto, Baha'i, etc. It's a big world out there, religiously speaking.

[Trieste]

I got 14 out of 15 correct, but that was only because I forgot that the Jewish sabbath actually begins on Friday. >.>

[Shoshana]

I got 14 out of 15 correct, but that was only because I forgot that the Jewish sabbath actually begins on Friday. >.>

Yeah--Judaism measures days from sundown to sundown. So today is a holiday called Simchat Torah--but it started last night at sundown, and it will end this evening as we usher in Shabbat (the Sabbath) around sundown.

Sometimes you'll hear Jews call Friday night 'erev Shabbat.' And last night was 'erev Simchat Torah.' ('Erev' translates, more or less, into 'evening of.' )

So since we're so close to sundown, I can officially wish you a 'Shabbat shalom'--a peaceful Sabbath.  ;)

[Trieste]

Yes'm. I was aware of that, and seem to vaguely recall being told that each day of Chanukah is celebrated right after sundown for that reason.

[Lilias]

I got 14 as well, missing the one about teachers being allowed to read from the Bible as literature (I hadn't read this thread or links in over a day, so no cheating). All one big shrug, actually. I'm not in the US, so I don't have to know what applies in religious practice there.

Also, I'm Eastern Orthodox, and I didn't expect to see that represented in the sample. Frankly, I'm getting sick of used to having to tick 'Other' when the issue crops up.

[Shoshana]

Also, I'm Eastern Orthodox, and I didn't expect to see that represented in the sample. Frankly, I'm getting sick of used to having to tick 'Other' when the issue crops up.

Yeah, I can see how that would get annoying.  :-(

Like I said above, this little quiz isn't nearly comprehensive enough. But at least it knows that there are Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians! It doesn't know that there are any different kinds of Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, or Hindus. And it doesn't know that Pagans, Sikhs, etc exist!

[Pumpkin Seeds]

No Salamander that’s not an extraneous variable.  The survey is a correlation survey which means that the survey is trying to find if two variables have a relation.  The strongest variable relation was found to be education level, not religious attendance.  This does not fit into cognitive dissonance since, as I pointed out, there should be an inverse relationship.  Religious attendance is not an extraneous variable but one of the variables being tested in the correlation study.  Also there is still the item of Mormons and Evangelicals scoring the highest on the Christian section of the survey.

As much as you like Oniya’s personal account, you are leaping to an assumption that you have demonstrated is part of your bias.  Saying that is probably cognitive dissonance at work here is speculation at best.  If 95% of the Christian world (in truth for cognitive dissonance to really work this would have to be the religious world) is suffering from cognitive dissonance then why is the Bible printed in its current form?  The Bible is an edited work with several sections missing.  The Catholic Church continually reviews sections of the Bible to be included or removed.  Cognitive dissonance would suggest that people would welcome the editing of the Bible so as to reduce their dissonance.

Throwing around a scientific term or theory to explain your bias does not make the bias seem any better.

[Salamander]

No Salamander that’s not an extraneous variable.  The survey is a correlation survey which means that the survey is trying to find if two variables have a relation.  The strongest variable relation was found to be education level, not religious attendance.  This does not fit into cognitive dissonance since, as I pointed out, there should be an inverse relationship.  Religious attendance is not an extraneous variable but one of the variables being tested in the correlation study.  Also there is still the item of Mormons and Evangelicals scoring the highest on the Christian section of the survey.

As I'm sure you know, whether a variable is extraneous or not depends on the hypothesis that is being tested. In the context of the cognitive dissonance hypothesis that I put forward, church attendance is very clearly an extraneous variable.

As much as you like Oniya’s personal account, you are leaping to an assumption that you have demonstrated is part of your bias.  Saying that is probably cognitive dissonance at work here is speculation at best.  If 95% of the Christian world (in truth for cognitive dissonance to really work this would have to be the religious world) is suffering from cognitive dissonance then why is the Bible printed in its current form?  The Bible is an edited work with several sections missing.  The Catholic Church continually reviews sections of the Bible to be included or removed.  Cognitive dissonance would suggest that people would welcome the editing of the Bible so as to reduce their dissonance.

I'm not leaping to any assumptions that I've demonstrated anything at all. As I made clear in my previous posts, additional research would be required to reach any sort of conclusion on this one. As for the Bible- its been its current form for an awfully long time (since the 5th century, in fact), and of course its also regarded as a holy text, so changing it would hardly be practicable. On the other hand, many Christian organizations publish selected excerpts from the Bible for the edification of believers. It would be interesting to know which particular sections of the Bible are used the most often. Similarly, it would be interesting to know which sections are most often used in sermons.

[Oniya]

As much as you like Oniya’s personal account, you are leaping to an assumption that you have demonstrated is part of your bias.  Saying that is probably cognitive dissonance at work here is speculation at best.  If 95% of the Christian world (in truth for cognitive dissonance to really work this would have to be the religious world) is suffering from cognitive dissonance then why is the Bible printed in its current form?  The Bible is an edited work with several sections missing.  The Catholic Church continually reviews sections of the Bible to be included or removed.  Cognitive dissonance would suggest that people would welcome the editing of the Bible so as to reduce their dissonance.

Also, I did put out there that my personal experience in church doesn't reflect what people may or may not have read of the Bible at home.  I suspect that with what we used to call 'C&E Catholics' (the ones that show up only for Christmas and Easter Mass), that effort isn't put forth.  The people that go in the middle of the week as well as on Saturday or Sunday are more likely to have read more, simply by being that wrapped up in their faith.  Then there's people like me who will read just about anything if it's handy and I've got nothing to do.  (This would probably fall under the education level correlation, seeing that there is a strong correlation between education level and reading for fun.)

What my anecdote does support is that the middle- to lower-ground of both variables (i.e., only religious enough to show up once a week if that, and not of the educational level to enjoy reading for reading's sake) are going to only experience what the pastor is putting out there.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

First, you have not made a hypothesis.  You have not made a testable statement but instead attempted to take current information and fit that into a framework.  Second, the study is a correlational study which means that the study is attempting to find a relationship between different variables.  You do not get to throw one variable out simply because that variable does not fit into your framework.  Third if you are once more falling back to say that more studies would have to be done to prove your hypothesis, as you are calling the statement, then the hypothesis does not get applied as if factual.  In a sense you are just stating a guess and throwing some makeup on that guess to make the statement factual.

And Oniya, this is why personal accounts are not used in a study that is attempting to be objective.  Not enough information can be drawn from your account to make that sort of determiantion.  Subjective studies are used to develop a theory, whereas Salamander contends that he is supporting a current theory with a hypothesis.  A personal account does not do that and his statement is an assumption at that point.

[DarklingAlice]

First, you have not made a hypothesis.  You have not made a testable statement but instead attempted to take current information and fit that into a framework.  Second, the study is a correlational study which means that the study is attempting to find a relationship between different variables.  You do not get to throw one variable out simply because that variable does not fit into your framework.  Third if you are once more falling back to say that more studies would have to be done to prove your hypothesis, as you are calling the statement, then the hypothesis does not get applied as if factual.  In a sense you are just stating a guess and throwing some makeup on that guess to make the statement factual.

This is seriously wearying. They are both hypotheses, they are both testable, neither of them should "get applied as if factual" because they aren't. They are untested hypotheses. Neither can be asserted as truth or falsified without gathering more data. You have a vendetta against Salamander's hypothesis. Fine. Go prove yours. Without more evidence, continually belaboring the point that you don't agree with his theory is useless.

[Salamander]

This is seriously wearying. They are both hypotheses, they are both testable, neither of them should "get applied as if factual" because they aren't. They are untested hypotheses. Neither can be asserted as truth or falsified without gathering more data. You have a vendetta against Salamander's hypothesis. Fine. Go prove yours. Without more evidence, continually belaboring the point that you don't agree with his theory is useless.

Yes, this is getting tiring. As you say, my cognitive dissonance hypothesis is an untested hypothesis- I've never claimed otherwise. However, as you note it is a testable hypothesis. In fact, testing it would be relatively straightforward. Heres a very rough outline of how one might go about doing so:

Background: The phenomenon under consideration is the relatively poor knowledge of the Bible shown by Christians in the survey. One possible hypothesis for explaining this poor knowledge is cognitive dissonance. That is: consciously or (more likely) unconsciously, Christians actually avoid gaining Biblical knowledge, since such knowledge potentially undermines their faith. If this hypothesis is correct, then you'd expect Christians to particularly avoid gaining knowledge of certain problematic sections of the Bible- e.g. the Davidic conquest of Palestine, Jesus' negative comments regarding the family.

Design: The study would use 2 groups:
Group A- Christians who affirm that their beliefs are of great personal importance to themselves.
Group B- Christians who say that their beliefs are less important.

Matching the 2 subject groups would be tricky, because there are at least 2 major extraneous variables to worry about- church attendance and education. Matching for church attendance might be especially hard, but it wouldn't be impossible. You'd also have to match for the usual stuff- age, gender etc.

Both subject groups would be given a questionnaire testing Biblical knowledge. Some of the questions would relate to previously-identified 'problematic' Bible passages.

The primary hypothesis is that Group A would actually do worse on the test than Group B. A secondary hypothesis is that this would be especially marked when it came to knowledge of the 'problematic' passages. As is usual in these sort of things, there is a good chance that the results would be ambiguous. However, if Group A actually did better on the questions relating to 'problematic' passages, then the cognitive dissonance hypothesis would clearly be disconfirmed.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I will begin this post by giving an apology to those that have grown weary or tired of the discussion at hand.  While my behavior has not been up to the standards others would desire, I do not believe my points are any less important or valid.  There have been accusations that I have a vendetta against the “hypothesis” poised by Salamander.  This statement is untrue because I have no issue with cognitive dissonance, nor would I have an issue with a study that provided data to support the application of cognitive dissonance to the religious.  Where I take issue is in making a statement under the guise of science that has no basis in actual scientific data.  To say that a person of religious faith must place themselves into willful ignorance of their religion in order to properly function is a bold statement, even more bold without any evidence to back up this assertion.

Now I will hope to garner the reader’s attention once more in order to show that this is no evidence from this survey to uphold the use of cognitive dissonance.  Salamander was kind and diligent enough to setup a model to prove his point.  I would be remiss not to address and review the model.  Now the background statement discusses the survey data as the basis for this belief, in particular the lack of knowledge by Christians about their own religion.  This phenomenon that is described and illustrated by the survey does not actually exist.  Allow me to quote the article presented by the original poster, “On questions about Christianity, Mormons scored the highest, with an average of about eight correct answers out of 12, followed by white evangelicals, with an average of just over seven correct answers.”  Therefore, on questions determined by the survey creators to be focused on Christianity, two Christian denominations scored the highest.  Also note that the survey in question did not only ask questions related to the Bible and the article did not give indication about anyone’s knowledge of the Bible.

The second portion of the background maintains that a person belonging to a Christian religion will avoid Biblical knowledge in order to reduce dissonance in their lives.  Once more the survey contradicts this statement.  Allow me once more to quote from the article, “Not surprisingly, those who said they attended worship at least once a week and considered religion important in their lives often performed better on the overall survey.”  Salamander has asserted that this variable is extraneous, but I feel confident in reintroducing this variable since this is the independent variable utilized in the design of his experiment.  In the design Salamander does state a desire to separate the variables of church attendance and importance, but I feel safe in stating that the majority of people that mark religion as important in their lives will also mark a high attendance of weekly mass.  More than likely there is a positive correlation between the two.

The design portion is a comparison between two groups.  One that identifies itself as Christian with low importance for religion and one that identifies itself as Christians with high importance for religion.  All other variables being equal, a test is given to both groups with the scores being compared.  Once more though this is a correlation study where two variables are being compared to one another.  Those variables being importance of religion and Biblical knowledge.  In order to determine the cause for a lack of Biblical knowledge a causative experiment would have to be carried out.  Such an experiment may look similar to this.

Begin with a random sampling and introduce a lesson on several Biblical passages, including those believed to invoke dissonance.  Before playing the video check the heart rate of participants and also give them a questionnaire to determine religious affiliation and importance of religion in their lives.  Monitor heart rate during the lesson and then perform an exit questionnaire to inspect their knowledge of the material afterward, paying particular attention to the question believed to cause dissonance.  This is the control group.  Using this group will help evaluate the effectiveness of the lesson, the standard heart rate different during the lesson and the subsequent scores following the lesson.

Next focus on the independent variable of high religious affiliation and importance.  Repeat the study on this target group.  The hypothesis that lead to this experiment may look something like this.  A Christian stating a high importance of religion in their daily life will experience greater stress during portion of a Bible lesson containing portions thought to cause dissonance and subsequently will score lower on a questions regarding these portions. 

Granted the experiment is flawed and the hypothesis not exact, but the pair were concocted in about five minutes.  Specifics aside the model is sound since to prove cognitive dissonance is the reason for a lack of knowledge, that dissonance has to be introduced through an experiment.  The passages have to be determined to cause dissonance in the person, displayed as stress, and then the subject has to show an inability to recall the events or rationalize them.  Notice though that the hypothesis that would lead to this experiment, a causative one that is, does not involve the survey.

This is because Salamander did not state a hypothesis, but rather an inference.  He inferred a claim from the survey.  The inference is shown to be incorrect I believe for the previously stated reasons.  Salamander has also said that his “hypothesis,” now shown to be an inference hopefully, is not tested.  Continuing to use this inference or “hypothesis” is making a broad, general claim about a group of people with no basis in fact.  He is stereotyping at this point by saying that Christians are ignorant of their own religion.

Thank you for your attention and I hope this adheres to a higher standard of behavior and argument.

[Salamander]

Well, first of all its very good to read a constructive post from Pumpkin Seeds. The causal/ experimental investigation that is proposed in her post looks interesting, and many thanks to Pumpkin Seeds for taking the time to think it through. I think that if you wished to look at the dissonance issue properly, it would make sense to carry out something like her experiment and the kind of correlative study that I proposed. That way you'd be approaching things from 2 different angles. If both studies ended up producing results consistent with the dissonance hypothesis, then you'd be able to say something like:
a) - Individuals with strong religious beliefs experience stress when watching videos concerning certain types of Bible passage
AND
b) - Individuals with strong religious beliefs are less likely to be knowledgeable about those particular passages.

You'd then be able to reasonably postulate a link between a and b. If you only did the first study, you wouldn't be able to say what the consequences of the observed stress were. If you only did the second, then you wouldn't be able to say what the cause of the phenomenon was.

Pumpkin Seeds doesn't think that there is a phenomenon there to begin with, of course. I disagree, for reasons that I've aleady discussed. For me, the fact that atheists are more knowledgeable about Christianity than most groups of Christian is something that needs to be explained, and I personally don't find the explanation that its just a matter of education very plausible. I'm quite happy to admit that I may be wrong here; unfortunately, in the absence of further information its impossible to say one way or the other.

[Will]

It really seems like you're trying to find a phenomenon where there isn't one, Salamander.  Even in the OP, it was stated that the difference between the results of atheists/agnostics and Mormons isn't even statistically significant.  Furthermore, it was stated in the article that those who considered religion more important in their lives did better.  Is there really a need for an explanation here?  More "casual" Christians obviously just don't take the time to delve deeper, and so they did more poorly. 

You're putting forth a hypothesis that has already been disproven in the article in question. O.o

Well, first of all its very good to read a constructive post from Pumpkin Seeds.

Also, this is really, really unnecessary.

[Zeitgeist]

Is it accurate do you think to lump together Atheists and Agnostics? Do the two share a more common belief system, as say Catholics and other Christians?

In my opinion, they don't. Someone who goes out of their way to self identify as Atheist could never be also described as being, well, agnostic. And if as the study says, there was little difference statistically between the two in their scores, then divide 20.9 in half and this survey looks quite different, and nor does it support the ideas people seemingly wish to make it say.

Simply said, its a thinly veiled poke in the eye of Christians, saying in effect: Ha! Those stupid, gullible Christians, they don't even know their own religion! Now I really despise them!

A months' worth of material for Bill Mahr I imagine.

[Will]

Is it accurate do you think to lump together Atheists and Agnostics? Do the two share a more common belief system, as say Catholics and other Christians?

In my opinion, they don't. Someone who goes out of their way to self identify as Atheist could never be also described as being, well, agnostic. And if as the study says, there was little difference statistically between the two in their scores, then divide 20.9 in half and this survey looks quite different, and nor does it support the ideas people seemingly wish to make it say.

You can't divide an average in half; it doesn't work that way. : /  I would be interested to see how the breakdown would look, though, if you did split atheists and agnostics into separate groups.  My initial expectation would be that agnostics on average scored a tiny bit higher than 20.9, atheists a tiny bit lower than 20.9, thus leading to that average of their averages.

Simply said, its a thinly veiled poke in the eye of Christians, saying in effect: Ha! Those stupid, gullible Christians, they don't even know their own religion! Now I really despise them!

I really agree with this.  I don't even know why else such a study would have been conducted.

[Zeitgeist]

You can't divide an average in half; it doesn't work that way. : /  I would be interested to see how the breakdown would look, though, if you did split atheists and agnostics into separate groups.  My initial expectation would be that agnostics on average scored a tiny bit higher than 20.9, atheists a tiny bit lower than 20.9, thus leading to that average of their averages.

I really agree with this.  I don't even know why else such a study would have been conducted.

Yeah, you're right. I got a little ahead of myself there. Nevertheless I don't think it is accurate to lump the two together. Jews and Catholics have more in common, in my opinion.

Personally I identify as Agnostic. I got a 73% score on the survey.

[mystictiger]

It also presupposes a view that one comes to faith through knowledge of doctrine / dogma / history rather than revalation and a personal experience of God.

It would be like saying "Oops. I failed the Friends of Judy test. Does that mean I can't be gay any more?" There are certain things that you define yourself by through your practice of a given subject rather than your knowledge.

Also, and maybe I missed this, but how did the survey determine religious identity? Was it a matter of self-reporting? Is someone in the survey a Catholic because they go to Mass twice a year, or because they support Celtic?

I think the point that 'if you knew more about [religion], you wouldn't practice' it is rather facile. Why? How else do missionaries work?

[Shoshana]

I keep wondering about the identification issue too. A Jew. is a Jew whether she's an atheist, agnostic, theist or monist--and whether she goes to synagogue or not.

Maybe you can say that a Catholic who becomes an atheist is no longer a Catholic--but a Jew is a Jew no matter what she believes or doesn't believe.

So we have tons of Jews who are atheists or agnostics, some of whom are totally secular and some of whom belong to and attend synagogues regularly. So how were they identified? As Jews, or as atheists or agnostics? I presume each person decided for herself, but there was sure to be overlap.

[Jude]

"Jew" is both a religious and an ethnic identity.  Since this is a religious survey, I'm guessing they asked them what faith they belonged to, not ethnicity.  And of course religious identity was self-reported for the survey -- how else could they possibly conduct it?

EDIT:  As for religions that aren't represented by the survey, there's a reason for that.  In order to conduct a polling of those religions they'd need to accrue a statistically significant sample of that religion to get an accurate result.  There are not many Hindus in America, so you can imagine that it'd be difficult to find a large enough number of them to examine their religious knowledge.  Now, you may suggest going to a Hindu community in order to gather the results, but that fails as a method because you're not randomizing the data enough.  Anyone left out was left out because they don't represent a significant portion of the US.

EDIT2:  I thought I was forgetting something -- if you're curious about the methodology, etc., it's on the first page.  DarklingAlice gave a link to the raw data that describes why certain groups were left out and the actual question asked.

[Oniya]

They could theoretically hand out surveys to people walking out of a variety of religious institutions (churches, synagogues, mosques, prayer halls, Pagan coffeehouses), but then they'd risk people like me, who continued to attend for family's sake until I moved out, and atheists and agnostics wouldn't be represented at all.

Self-reporting is about the only reasonable way to do it.

[Jude]

They could theoretically hand out surveys to people walking out of a variety of religious institutions (churches, synagogues, mosques, prayer halls, Pagan coffeehouses), but then they'd risk people like me, who continued to attend for family's sake until I moved out, and atheists and agnostics wouldn't be represented at all.

Self-reporting is about the only reasonable way to do it.

Even for measuring Christians, that wouldn't work because the sample wouldn't be random enough -- you'd be snagging people disproportionately from specific religious institutions, which would result in inaccurate numbers.

[Shoshana]

"Jew" is both a religious and an ethnic identity.  Since this is a religious survey, I'm guessing they asked them what faith they belonged to, not ethnicity.  And of course religious identity was self-reported for the survey -- how else could they possibly conduct it?

Judiasm isn't an ethnicity--I'm a white girl of Irish, German and Italian background. I'm clearly not the same ethnicity as the black members and Asian members of my synagogue! Yet we're all Jews.

Meanwhile, you can't even say that atheist Jews aren't religious. Plenty of atheist Jews are active in synagogue. Heck, one whole branch of Judaism--Reconstructionist--started as an atheistic branch. (Although G-d isn't quite a bad word anymore to Reconstructionists.)

Then you have secular Jews who may be atheists or agnostics or theists--but identify more strongly as Jews than anything else.

So the neat divisions for Jews you present don't hold up under scrutiny. Religious identity is a far more complex matter.

[Jude]

That may be your view, but I don't know if that's particularly widespread, prevalent, or representative of the whole.  For example, Israel itself holds that a person is no longer a Jew if they convert to another religion, making an Atheist Jew not a Jew.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1950_1959/Law%20of%20Return%205710-1950

EDIT:  I'm not saying that makes your view any less valid.  The mere fact that you believe that means that there are probably others out there who feel the same way.  And your insight definitely exposes the muddying of the waters and indefinably of what a "Jew" is.

[Shoshana]

Atheist Jews are considered Jews by the state of Israel, Jude. They are fully elligible to make aliyah. Becoming an atheist is not considered practicing another religion. Chris Hitchens can move to Israel tomorrow if he wants--so can any Reconstructionist Jew, and that is a largely atheist movement in Judaism. 

Edit--Israel would be in deep trouble if it excluded atheists as Jews! Remember, secular Jews are the overwhelming majority of Jews there and atheists are a dime a dozen. Heck, most of the founding Zionists were atheists--and just about all the famous ones.

[Jude]

I'll confess I don't understand how being an Atheist is seen as not practicing another religion, but religions are quirky -- it possibly isn't something that I can understand as an outsider to the belief/culture/religion/whatever you wanna call it.

[Oniya]

I would guess it's because being an atheist is generally defined as not practicing any religion at all - it's like having no ice cream is not the same as having 'a different flavor than vanilla'.

[Will]

That's kind of funny, then.  It's like saying, we don't mind if you put the ice cream down, but you'd better not order a different flavor!

I can understand how atheism wouldn't negate a person's rights as a Jew.  It's their heritage, not their beliefs.  But it seems odd to me how that goes out the window if they DO decide to take up another religion.  They still have the same ancestry, so why is their heritage negated?

[Shoshana]

I'll confess I don't understand how being an Atheist is seen as not practicing another religion, but religions are quirky -- it possibly isn't something that I can understand as an outsider to the belief/culture/religion/whatever you wanna call it.

Creed is not all that important in Judaism. You could be an Orthodox Jew and be an atheist. If you do all the stuff you're supposed to do--you keep Shabbat (the Sabbath), you help the needy, you stay kosher, you dress with modesty, you keep your head covered, you celebrate the holidays, you're active in an Orthodox synagogue, etc., etc.--you're Orthodox, even if you don't believe in G-d. Even if you outspokenly don't believe in G-d. Your rabbi might hope you'll come around--but ultimately he'll be more concerned with what you do than with what you believe.

Culturally and religiously in Judaism, deed outweighs creed. Plus, even among theistic Jews, you'll find it's common to deny any type of personal G-d. I disagree with that--but that's common in Judaism too. We argue about everything! 

So if you start attending a synagogue and announce that you're an atheist, don't worry. You're not going to shock anyone. You'll find some people to argue with, but that's a good thing. That means you're doing something right!

[Shoshana]

That's kind of funny, then.  It's like saying, we don't mind if you put the ice cream down, but you'd better not order a different flavor!

I can understand how atheism wouldn't negate a person's rights as a Jew.  It's their heritage, not their beliefs.  But it seems odd to me how that goes out the window if they DO decide to take up another religion.  They still have the same ancestry, so why is their heritage negated?

This is an interesting question. Like I said in the post to Jude just above this one, what you do is much more important than what you believe in Judaism. So is what you are--and, per halacha (Jewish law) if you're born to a Jewish mother or you convert to Judaism, you're always a Jew. So Bob Dylan mighty have gone through a Christian phase, but he remained halachically a Jew. A Jew in error, per some rabbis, but still a Jew.

The state of Israel's definition of a Jew, however, doesn't always match the halachic definition. In most respects, it's broader. But not about this. I'm guessing this was adopted to curtail the 'Jews for Jesus' and other groups who have made converting Jews to Christianity their life's mission. No Jew goes to Israel to get preached to by Christian missionaries, after all. I mean, it happens, but I don't think the state wishes to encourage these (quasi-Jewish) Christians to move to Israel.

Meanwhile, I've never heard of a Jewbu--a Jewish Buddhist--being denied entrance to Israel. But they don't try to convert other Jews.

However, there is a 'Jews for Jesus' and 'Messianic' presence in Israel. After all, whether you're a Jew or not, you can still become an Israeli citizen. It might not be automatic if you're not a Jew yourself or married to one or the child or grandchild of one, that's all.

(And there are plenty of regular Christian Israeli ciitizens. And Muslim Israeli citizens.And the Baha'i have their headquarters in Israel. And, believe it or not, there's a Hindu presence there too.)

Edit--sorry for all the bad spelling, folks. I'm thumb typing on my Blackberry.

[DarklingAlice]

Creed is not all that important in Jusaism. You could be an Orthodox Jew and be an atheist. If you do all the stuff you're supposed to do--you keep Shabbat (the Sabbath), you help the needy, you stay kosher, you dress with modesty, you keep your head covered, you celebrate the holidays, you're active in an Orthodox synagogue, etc., etc.--you're Orthodox, even if you don't believe in G-d. Even if you outspokenly don't believe in G-d. Your rabbi might hope you'll come around--but ultimately he'll be more concerned with what you do than with what you believe.

No.

This is complete misinformation. Among the primary tenets of Orthodox Judiasm are the direct divine revelation of the Law to Moses, the existence of a divine covenant with the Jewish people, the validity of the Torah as the divinely inspired word. The way you keep Shabbat is the study of and meditation on Torah as divine truth. The first of Moses Maimonides' principles of the Jewish faith is the existence of God.

I cannot speak to any of the rest of Shoshana's statements or any of her information about the State of Israel, but her explanation of Orthodoxy is a complete falsehood. As a result I would advise seeking independent verification for her other claims.

[Shoshana]

No.

This is complete misinformation. Among the primary tenets of Orthodox Judiasm are the direct divine revelation of the Law to Moses, the existence of a divine covenant with the Jewish people, the validity of the Torah as the divinely inspired word. The way you keep Shabbat is the study of and meditation on Torah as divine truth. The first of Moses Maimonides' principles of the Jewish faith is the existence of God.

I cannot speak to any of the rest of Shoshana's statements or any of her information about the State of Israel, but her explanation of Orthodoxy is a complete falsehood. As a result I would advise seeking independent verification for her other claims.

Well, I know a couple of atheist Orthodox Jews--they haven't been thrown out of the community. Admittedly, they're Modern Orthodox. (Heck, I've known gay Orthodox Jews too--they're also still in the community, though they're not atheists.)

I asked a very frum friend of mine about this too--frum means, well let's just say she's from a very Orthodox community--and she gave the same opinion. If you're observant, she said, even if you're atheist you'd still be considered Orthodox in her community. It's just that not many people will agree with you and they'll probably be sorry for you!

Now, again, no Orthodox rabbi is going to encourage atheism. However, at least among the Modern Orthodox, you're not going to find many who will turn away a Jew who wants to be observant, atheist or not.

Remember--we agreed, at Sinai, first to do the mitzvot (commandments) and secondly to hear them. Perform the commandments first, then you'll understand them.

Also a standard (Orthodox) rabbinic teaching is that the mitzvot do not require kavanah (with a few arguable exceptions.) That is, fulfilling the commandments doesn't require us to have mindfulness, or to understand them, or even to agree with them. But, again, by doing, we come to understand.

Lastly, I've never known any rabbi, of any branch, to use Maimonides's principles as a litmus test.

So what kind of Orthodox Judaism are you intimately acquainted with? And what has been your personal experience? I'm a Conservative Jew--most of my contact with Orthodox Judaism has been with Modern Orthodox communities (apart from my one really frum friend.) I've also had contact with the Chabad--I don't think they'd turn away any Jew who wanted to be observant either. I mean, their whole schpiel is to reach out to secular Jews. I also have my BA in religious studies.

So, since you took such exception to me, what are your credentials? It may be that you're from an Orthodox Jewish background and have had vastly different experiences than me. I'd love to hear all about it.

[Trieste]

If you guys would like to discuss this, please do so in PM. :)

[Serephino]

Another possible reason for such an outcome is the people who identify, but don't practice.  There are many people out there who were raised Christian, and still call themselves Christian, but haven't stepped foot inside a church since they moved out of their parents' house.  A lot of people in my area are like this.  I even called myself Christian for a while after I stopped going to church.

Another thing you should look at is the questions.  Not all of them are about Christianity.  In the 15 question version I took, at least 5 involved Judaism, Islam, Hinduism. and Buddhism.  Even a devout Christian isn't likely to know the answers to those questions.  Most religions don't focus on others too much because they believe that the others are wrong.   

[Noelle]

Judiasm isn't an ethnicity--I'm a white girl of Irish, German and Italian background. I'm clearly not the same ethnicity as the black members and Asian members of my synagogue! Yet we're all Jews.

Don't confuse race with ethnicity. Ethnicity is a broad term to describe a group of people that may be categorized by a shared background, heritage, language, and yes, even religion. Race connotates black, white, Asian, etc., whereas you would share ethnicity with those people by not only being a fellow Jew, but also a fellow American. Yay!

Actually, you might find its etymology even more ironic, albeit outdated:

The term "ethnic" and related forms from the 14th century through the middle of the 19th century were used in English in the meaning of "pagan, heathen", as ethnikos was used as the LXX translation of Hebrew goyim "the nations, non-Hebrews, non-Jews"

Anyway, regardless of why things turned out the way they did, I don't see what purpose this serves on the whole; Of course religions won't teach about other religions on church time, their primary goal is to convince people that they have the right ones and that they need to focus on the religion they're in. It makes perfect sense; churches aren't just places of faith, they're a business, as well. If you don't have customers/a congregation, you don't have a job/a flock to guide on the right path, so to speak. They don't need to reconcile or compare, they merely need to keep their own numbers up and keep spreading the good word about their own faith.

[Asuras]

It makes perfect sense; churches aren't just places of faith, they're a business, as well.

Businesses are run for profit for shareholders. Churches aren't. The restrictions placed on charitable groups are significant; otherwise churches that really wanted to be businesses would stop pretending, and businesses that wanted the tax breaks would pretend to be. They take a side because of their purpose.

I was a Lutheran growing up and although I'm an atheist now I have respect for religious people and organizations and their role in our communities. And I think it's a bit insulting to call them "businesses, as well" just because they need tithes to keep the leases on the churchgrounds.

[Will]

I suspect that she may have meant in the metaphorical sense.  They do have a "product" (their message), and they want people to "buy it" in lieu of their "competitors," which is how it ties into the discussion about not knowing about the competitors' product.

[Noelle]

Businesses are run for profit for shareholders. Churches aren't. The restrictions placed on charitable groups are significant; otherwise churches that really wanted to be businesses would stop pretending, and businesses that wanted the tax breaks would pretend to be. They take a side because of their purpose.

I was a Lutheran growing up and although I'm an atheist now I have respect for religious people and organizations and their role in our communities. And I think it's a bit insulting to call them "businesses, as well" just because they need tithes to keep the leases on the churchgrounds.

Mega-churches are a fantastic example of questionable borderline "is this REALLY just a 'charitable group'" type church, but that's actually not my point. Will is exactly right in the message I was getting at. No congregation? Nobody to preach to. No customers? No business. Easy.

[Asuras]

I suspect that she may have meant in the metaphorical sense.  They do have a "product" (their message), and they want people to "buy it" in lieu of their "competitors," which is how it ties into the discussion about not knowing about the competitors' product.

That's reasonable, although I think that the overtone of "they do it for money" damages the metaphor.

Mega-churches are a fantastic example of questionable borderline "is this REALLY just a 'charitable group'" type church, but that's actually not my point.

Yeah, there are frauds, sure. I'm not going to defend TBN.

Will is exactly right in the message I was getting at. No congregation? Nobody to preach to. No customers? No business. Easy.

What I'm pointing out is if this is the right metaphor for the typical church. Sure, if there are no congregants the church will die, just as a "Save The Whales" NGO will die if no one wants to save the whales. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the profit motive was the driving factor in founding the church.

[Noelle]

And whereabouts might I have said that profit was the driving factor? Where have I mentioned money at all in any of this? You're taking what I said literally, which is the exact opposite of the purpose of a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech used to suggest similar qualities, not to say that something is literally something else. If you're getting the message that I'm suggesting church = turning a profit, then that's not the correct message I was trying to send.

[Asuras]

And whereabouts might I have said that profit was the driving factor? Where have I mentioned money at all in any of this? You're taking what I said literally, which is the exact opposite of the purpose of a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech used to suggest similar qualities, not to say that something is literally something else. If you're getting the message that I'm suggesting church = turning a profit, then that's not the correct message I was trying to send.

You compared a church to a business. The defining characteristic of a business is profit motive (particularly as joined to a non-profit). What else am I to take from your metaphor?

If you simply meant "A church wants members" you wouldn't have needed a metaphor as this is self-evident.

[Noelle]

You took offense to a message I wasn't intending to send. I apologize for that. I hope it's clear now. I'm really not interested in discussing your thoughts on my usage of this particular comparison, nor is that the intent of this thread. I've made my point, I've clarified, let's move on, please.

[Asuras]

Accepted.

[Shoshana]

Don't confuse race with ethnicity. Ethnicity is a broad term to describe a group of people that may be categorized by a shared background, heritage, language, and yes, even religion. Race connotates black, white, Asian, etc., whereas you would share ethnicity with those people by not only being a fellow Jew, but also a fellow American. Yay!

Actually, you might find its etymology even more ironic, albeit outdated:

The term "ethnic" and related forms from the 14th century through the middle of the 19th century were used in English in the meaning of "pagan, heathen", as ethnikos was used as the LXX translation of Hebrew goyim "the nations, non-Hebrews, non-Jews."

Hmmm.  Ok, in that case, I have a bunch of ethnicities, one of which is Jewish. Ditto for everyone in my synagogue, no matter what race. I'll have to get used to using ethnicity that way, though. Meanwhile I'll probably stick with describing us as sharing a religion and culture. (With due respect to the differing cultures of different types of Jews, lol.)

Thanks for the etymology of 'ethnicity.'  Interesting! Just to clarify, 'goy' doesn't refer only to non-Jews. Goy just means 'nation' in general. The people Israel--all the Jewish people, I mean, not just the state of Israel--are also a goy. We're supposed to strive to be a 'goy kadosh'--a holy nation.

Colloquially, however, your quote is right: it usually means non-Jew in the singular, and in the plural ('goyim') it tends to mean the non-Jewish world. (But sometimes it means all the nations and peoples of the world, including the people Israel.)

(I bring this up because sometimes people think 'goy' is an insulting world. It isn't. You can use it with an insulting sneer, if you're not a nice person, but the word itself is neutral.)

Anyway, regardless of why things turned out the way they did, I don't see what purpose this serves on the whole; Of course religions won't teach about other religions on church time, their primary goal is to convince people that they have the right ones and that they need to focus on the religion they're in. It makes perfect sense; churches aren't just places of faith, they're a business, as well. If you don't have customers/a congregation, you don't have a job/a flock to guide on the right path, so to speak. They don't need to reconcile or compare, they merely need to keep their own numbers up and keep spreading the good word about their own faith.

Not all religions are missionary religions, so not all 'spread the word.'  And I think religions do a better job now at coming together; we have a lot more interfaith dialogue and cooperative projects as far as food banks and things go than, say, sixty years ago. Plus many of us live in pluralistic areas, so people tend to know people of all different religious backgrounds. We've got a long way to go, but I think that as far as greater understanding between people of different religions goes, there are reasons to be optimistic.  O:)

[Noelle]

To be fair, there are still a few places that use race/ethnicity interchangeably, it's definitely not the first time I've seen it been used to denote race.

You're right though, not all religions aim to convert and whatnot, there is certainly more understanding, but I still don't see a significant amount of that cross-exchange happening within the church themselves, but rather as a product of standard societal encounters. I recently read about a church somewhere that began inviting Muslims in to use their facilities because they lacked a sufficient place of their own; I think that's great, I think more places could do with inviting people of other faiths in not just when they have needs, but as a semi-regular occurrence to promote strong ties and good fellowship across religions.