here is a short synopsis of Dennett. sort of Dennett in a nutshell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La0sF1Y3AI4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La0sF1Y3AI4
What are the factual Christian statistics?
- Thread starter Medicine*Woman
- Start date
cato said:
More off-topic Christian bashing. Can we please stay on the subject at hand?
what? I thought the topic was how the polls say that 33% of the world is Christian, and that the number is probably much lower, dispute the perception of many Christians. is that not the topic?
moreover, how is that Christian bashing? I just suggested a method for measuring the zeal of Christians.
moreover, how is that Christian bashing? I just suggested a method for measuring the zeal of Christians.
It's Christian bashing because it was designed to invoke moral revulsion in people who call themselves Christians, in an attempt to create some nifty cognitive dissonance. We're not talking about whether or not Christians understand their own religion, or whether the passages in their holy text are morally reprehensible. We're talking about statistics. The statistical prevalence of people who assign unto themselves the label "Christian". I'd say it's less about what people who call themselves "Christian" think, and more about what they do. Less about belief, and more about practice.cato said:
how do you measure religious practice? it would be very hard. however, you can measure zeal using my above example. perhaps make a list of gradually less offensive passages, and see where the people fall. then you could track the zeal of the population, and compare that to the statistics of who says they are Christian.
my point is: if you can't trust the statistics you have, maybe you need to measure something else.
my point is: if you can't trust the statistics you have, maybe you need to measure something else.
The Pope wouldn't agree with the passage you quoted, though. Probably only a fundamentalist would, and that's because fundamentalists not only take holy scripture literally, they give it unquestioned authority.cato said:
By that litmus test, only a very small part of that 33% would qualify, even though at least 99% of Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and almost any other Christian denomination, including the clergy themselves, would be excluded. So it is also important to correctly identify what you are testing for.
you are right. thats why I think test should have many passages of varying offensiveness, so we can see where people fall. so that people who check the Christian box can be tested for zeal, then you data will tell you a lot more. that one I quoted is the most extreme case I know of, thats why I posed it.
also, I really don't like christens very much, so sometimes bashing comes through when I was not even thinking about it. =]
also, I really don't like christens very much, so sometimes bashing comes through when I was not even thinking about it. =]
I think the only 'christians' you would have to extract from that 33% would be the ones who say they are christian simply because they were born into it. A person is only a christian if they actually believe in some/all of the BS that goes along with it. Many people will be in that 33% because they don't care about religion and have no opinion on it either way, so they tick the box they were born under. And so we don't have an accurate picture.
The way a survey could be more accurate is first asking them in they believe in a certain number of theistic principles such as... God, heaven, hell, the bible/koran etc, then at the end of it asking their religion.
The way a survey could be more accurate is first asking them in they believe in a certain number of theistic principles such as... God, heaven, hell, the bible/koran etc, then at the end of it asking their religion.
Don't forget Deut 10, (about stoning naughty children to death).
Personally I agree with you Cato and can't see why some others have got all defensive over it.
The current discussion is that 33% are christian, (or not as the case may be). The point is what exactly qualifies as a "christian"? If we look at dictionary.com we come up with:
"a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ"
Which would pretty much mean there's no such thing as a christian. Or perhaps:
"exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ"
Which would result in the same thing.
Time and time again on this forum we see one christian tell another christian that he's not a real christian. Adstar does it all the time. It's quite clear that even the supposed christians can't figure out what a christian is or is not and so Cato's test must surely have some merit?
Christian is just a word. I hate labels. You run into these kinds of problems with every label.
That's just a fact of being human. We have brains that function in abstract terms, labeling and categorizing is how humans think. Moreover, if we can find labels to attach to observations about the world around us, how would we ever begin to discuss and describe? I suggest that those who are most vocal against labels are so because of their fear or reluctance to find truth, though I wouldn't suggest that this applies to you in this instance.
With regard to the topic, the problem, as I see it, is one of methodology. How to you observe membership in a given religion to begin with? What defines sincerity in being a member of a given religion? Can one simply agree to be a member and be counted or does one have to arrive at a given standard for that religion?
If there is a standard to be met, what is it? Should it be set by those within the religion or without? Either way, there's a bias involved and the trick will be determining which is more objective: an emic perspective or an ettic one. And, once you find the standard by which to measure true membership to a religion, can this standard be applied equally to other religions? Probably not, since religions vary, some greatly. Using frequency of church attendance wouldn't work with all religions since some cults don't require attendance at all while others require it regularly and often.
In the end, I'm afraid we'd back to self-reporting as the most reliable measure. An emic perspective from the individual. Whatever cult or philosophy that has the most influence on the individual; the one they're most likely to be afraid to deviate from or violate rules of; the one they're most likely to feel pressured to adhere to the doctrines of. That would be the religion that they should be assigned membership to.
If that's the case, then the 33% figure that *MW* cited from adherents.com is probably as accurate as it gets. If you cite church attendance figures (for xians), using a standard of frequency (at least X number of days/year), then the percentages drop considerably.
I've seen christian apologetics and secular critics alike use both figures for varied agenda. Some like the latter method since relatively few christians actually attend church with weekly regularity. Apologetics use this to motivate the attending flock to "witness" others, drive up membership, and encourage backsliders to attend more regularly. Critics of secularism use the same data to bitch about how the devil is taking over the United States and atheists/humanists are oppressing christians. Secular critics of religion use the same data to demonstrate the failure of superstition and religions as cults that can dominate society. And so on.
There is something to what Cato added, even though Jaster Mereel (who still claims he's not a christian?
) disagrees with it. This is probably best discussed by Sam Harris in The End of Faith, where he discusses how moderates enable fundamentalists by not taking a stand on their religious doctrines. If the bible, for instance (the thread *is* about christianity) is truly inerrant, then there is much that is simply ignored and overlooked by moderates. Truly, every christian should be burning sacrifices and stoning adultresses. These practices and many others are rejected because they go against common sense developed and maintained by a modern (read non-Bronze Age) society. Fundamentalists, a very small sub-percentage of that 33%, find their most vocal rhetoric in many of the very passages that moderates ignore. But the intellectually dishonest moderates try to have their cake (modernity) and eat it too (antiquated ideas).
Cato was pointing out the very intellectually dishonest position that most christians take. Do we count them as truly christian, since they don't actually believe fully in their doctrines? Personally, I think so.
With regard to the topic, the problem, as I see it, is one of methodology. How to you observe membership in a given religion to begin with? What defines sincerity in being a member of a given religion? Can one simply agree to be a member and be counted or does one have to arrive at a given standard for that religion?
If there is a standard to be met, what is it? Should it be set by those within the religion or without? Either way, there's a bias involved and the trick will be determining which is more objective: an emic perspective or an ettic one. And, once you find the standard by which to measure true membership to a religion, can this standard be applied equally to other religions? Probably not, since religions vary, some greatly. Using frequency of church attendance wouldn't work with all religions since some cults don't require attendance at all while others require it regularly and often.
In the end, I'm afraid we'd back to self-reporting as the most reliable measure. An emic perspective from the individual. Whatever cult or philosophy that has the most influence on the individual; the one they're most likely to be afraid to deviate from or violate rules of; the one they're most likely to feel pressured to adhere to the doctrines of. That would be the religion that they should be assigned membership to.
If that's the case, then the 33% figure that *MW* cited from adherents.com is probably as accurate as it gets. If you cite church attendance figures (for xians), using a standard of frequency (at least X number of days/year), then the percentages drop considerably.
I've seen christian apologetics and secular critics alike use both figures for varied agenda. Some like the latter method since relatively few christians actually attend church with weekly regularity. Apologetics use this to motivate the attending flock to "witness" others, drive up membership, and encourage backsliders to attend more regularly. Critics of secularism use the same data to bitch about how the devil is taking over the United States and atheists/humanists are oppressing christians. Secular critics of religion use the same data to demonstrate the failure of superstition and religions as cults that can dominate society. And so on.
There is something to what Cato added, even though Jaster Mereel (who still claims he's not a christian?
) disagrees with it. This is probably best discussed by Sam Harris in The End of Faith, where he discusses how moderates enable fundamentalists by not taking a stand on their religious doctrines. If the bible, for instance (the thread *is* about christianity) is truly inerrant, then there is much that is simply ignored and overlooked by moderates. Truly, every christian should be burning sacrifices and stoning adultresses. These practices and many others are rejected because they go against common sense developed and maintained by a modern (read non-Bronze Age) society. Fundamentalists, a very small sub-percentage of that 33%, find their most vocal rhetoric in many of the very passages that moderates ignore. But the intellectually dishonest moderates try to have their cake (modernity) and eat it too (antiquated ideas).Cato was pointing out the very intellectually dishonest position that most christians take. Do we count them as truly christian, since they don't actually believe fully in their doctrines? Personally, I think so.
While I agree with a lot of what SW said, I must say that when it comes to a religion without centralization (The way Christianity is now, since before there was only the Church) you really have to use the standards of the practictioners to define who is and isn't among them.
Of course, this leads to problems since many of the various groups within Christianity claim that other groups aren't "true" Christians, so we're going to have to settle on self-identification as the standard, because if you choose one group and say that they are the true Christians, then you inevitably end up excluding a very large number of people who identify themselves as Christians. What are we to do? Say to those people "No, we've established this arbitrary standard for determining who is Christian, and you don't fall under that category. You might as well stop calling yourself a Christian, then. We obviously know more about your religion than you do." That's seems like sloppy statistics. And lazy, too.
This is the major problem with categorizing religious groups the way many people want, because so many of these groups read the same book and develop different ideas based on it. You can't honestly say that one must contend that 100% of the Bible, as well as the narrow interpretation of it held by fundamentalist Christians is the defining Christian position, since throughout most of Christian history the Bible has not been interpreted in a 100% literal fashion. That's how the Catholic Church ran the religion, and it's still how they go about it today. Fundamentalist, literal readings of the Bible are a relatively new phenomenon, so it's very easy to pick out a passage that is unseemly to most people (and also has no bearing on religious ideas, but cultural observations of the time in which the book was written), and thus conclude that the majority of people who call themselves Christians are not, in fact, what they say they are. In other words, who gets to decide what beliefs make a person a Christian or not? A Secular Humanist who has a settled antipathy to Christianity in the first place? That's like relying on car manufacturers to accurately record instances of automobile accidents caused by faulty design. It's just a poor way to perform statistical analysis.
And yes, Skinwalker, I still "claim" I am not a Christian, because I am not. Just because I disagree with your view of religion, it does not mean that I am a religious practitioner. The arrogance you have to assume that I am religious, merely because I disagree with you is absolutely astounding. Labels are self-assigning, so quit saying I'm a theist when I keep maintaining that I'm not.
Of course, this leads to problems since many of the various groups within Christianity claim that other groups aren't "true" Christians, so we're going to have to settle on self-identification as the standard, because if you choose one group and say that they are the true Christians, then you inevitably end up excluding a very large number of people who identify themselves as Christians. What are we to do? Say to those people "No, we've established this arbitrary standard for determining who is Christian, and you don't fall under that category. You might as well stop calling yourself a Christian, then. We obviously know more about your religion than you do." That's seems like sloppy statistics. And lazy, too.
This is the major problem with categorizing religious groups the way many people want, because so many of these groups read the same book and develop different ideas based on it. You can't honestly say that one must contend that 100% of the Bible, as well as the narrow interpretation of it held by fundamentalist Christians is the defining Christian position, since throughout most of Christian history the Bible has not been interpreted in a 100% literal fashion. That's how the Catholic Church ran the religion, and it's still how they go about it today. Fundamentalist, literal readings of the Bible are a relatively new phenomenon, so it's very easy to pick out a passage that is unseemly to most people (and also has no bearing on religious ideas, but cultural observations of the time in which the book was written), and thus conclude that the majority of people who call themselves Christians are not, in fact, what they say they are. In other words, who gets to decide what beliefs make a person a Christian or not? A Secular Humanist who has a settled antipathy to Christianity in the first place? That's like relying on car manufacturers to accurately record instances of automobile accidents caused by faulty design. It's just a poor way to perform statistical analysis.
And yes, Skinwalker, I still "claim" I am not a Christian, because I am not. Just because I disagree with your view of religion, it does not mean that I am a religious practitioner. The arrogance you have to assume that I am religious, merely because I disagree with you is absolutely astounding. Labels are self-assigning, so quit saying I'm a theist when I keep maintaining that I'm not.