The more you know about religion, the less you want anything to do with it.

[praxis1966]

Basic Religion Test Stumps Many Americans

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/laurie_goodstein/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: September 28, 2010

Americans are by all measures a deeply religious people, but they are also deeply ignorant about religion.

Researchers from the independent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life phoned more than 3,400 Americans and asked them 32 questions about the Bible (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/bible/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), Christianity and other world religions, famous religious figures and the constitutional principles governing religion in public life.


On average, people who took the survey (http://www.pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx) answered half the questions incorrectly, and many flubbed even questions about their own faith.


Those who scored the highest were atheists (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/atheism/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and agnostics, as well as two religious minorities: Jews and Mormons. The results were the same even after the researchers controlled for factors like age and racial differences.


Full Text (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html)

[anticap]

Americans are by all measures a deeply religious people

I can't remember where, but I've heard that about 1/3 of US-Americans under 30 now identify as non-religious. If this is true, then it is a staggering shift from the typically single-digit responses in that category.

I'm skeptical of the 'Americans are deeply religious' mantra anyway. I don't know who said it, but it's true: there simply aren't enough pews for all the butts of those who claim to be churchgoers. I once saw a study done by a religious organization that recommended building more churches for that very reason, and based on the premise that 'if you build them, they will come.'

[Apoi_Viitor]

I used to have a friend who was a Priest, and he would tell me stories about how after Mass ended, he would walk out into the parking lot and watch parents hitting their kids, people swearing at one another, etc. I could tell it somewhat troubled him - that large portions of the regular church-goers knew/cared very little about what their religion was actually about, and more-or-less showed up regularly because they thought they were obliged to.

Anyways, I don't see anything wrong with religion, as long as its not out there to preach about the "sins of homosexuality" or about how "Abortion isn't a woman's right". My grandfather was a sort-of "fill-in" or quasi-priest, and he would tell stories about how he would regularly be in conflict with the more "traditional" priests, because to him, "Christianity was about spirituality, not about being lectured in political opinions".

And there's no doubt that Americans are deeply ignorant about religion - just look at the "ground-zero" mosque debate.

[¿Que?]

I saw this article too, and almost posted it as well. It is somewhat ironic that atheists know more about religion than religious people. In all fairness, they said that for the Christianity section alone, Christians scored higher. But that doesn't really say much about Christians. It actually backs up the claim that Americans, usually your right wing ultra religious variety, tend to be culturally chauvinistic and nearsighted, and that they are out of touch with the rest of the world.

[Invincible Summer]

I wonder how many people identify as Christians because they equate it with being "moral."

Thus, like AI of yesteryear trying to pass as human, these "believers" go to church and makes all the appropriate sounds and movements, but don't really know what they are doing.

I think that the salvation paradigm found in Abrahamic religions (esp Christianity where emphasis on scripture doesn't seem to be as intense as in Islam and Judaism) can very easily make their adherents susceptible to this sort of "zombie-believer" behaviour. When one just has to "believe and trust in Jesus" in order to be "saved," then why bother learn about anything else or actually try to understand one's own theology?

I think it may also have to do with individualist consumer capitalism where satisfying one's own needs (in this case, to be saved after death and be forgiven from sins) is in fashion. If one already "knows" that they will be saved by Jesus, why learn about other religions? I'm already going to be saved.

It's a pity... I mean at least read up about other beliefs as interesting mythologies so you can learn something.

[Adi Shankara]

Full Text (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html)

I think more people are geniunely spiritual and believe in a higher power than any organized religion. it's like religion in Europe: you'd think everyone was atheist in Europe by membership of organized religion, until you find out that non-religious includes those who believe in a higher power.

[Thirsty Crow]

On a side note, the level of exploitation of the workers in European and Canadian type welfare states is slightly lesser than in the USA as well as in most of the Third World countries. This probably suggests that as exploitation decreases in certain countries relatively to other countries, the religiousness of that country's population also decreases in proportion. For instance, in the welfare states of Scandinavia, religion plays a minimal part in the lives of its proletariat. This only goes to suggest that even reformist capitalism can help in eliminating religion in a large part.

But where is the evidence for this claim?
I mean, forget about evidence, I could dig up the stats if I wanted to, and I suppose that they would back up your claim that "religion plays a minimal part in the lives of proletarians in Scandinavia" (however, I don't think that polls and research on religious beliefs and practices are necessarily according to according to class line). What bugs me is the nonchalant mechanicism with which some people analyze the phenomenon of organized religion. For instance, your final conclusion is an example of this "it will fade away" argument (the same argument, that, it seems to me, is also used in relation to the state).

[Queercommie Girl]

I think more people are geniunely spiritual and believe in a higher power than any organized religion. it's like religion in Europe: you'd think everyone was atheist in Europe by membership of organized religion, until you find out that non-religious includes those who believe in a higher power.

Buddhism is relatively superior in this sense precisely because it is a form of spirituality that requires no worship of "higher powers" or "gods". Buddhas are technically only teachers, not intrinsically higher than humans. Humans cannot become gods (except in Religious Daoism), but everyone can potentially become a buddha. So it's a more humanist religion.

Of course, Lamaist Buddhism, like in pre-revolutionary Tibet, can also be extremely reactionary, but that's an organised religion.

[Noinu]

I'm not really sure how you connect the your topic title to the article itself, since around here religion is taught very well at school, not just christian ideologies but most larger religions and some others as well, we covered very carefully everything from islam to small animistic religions and many of these people still believe in a god (or gods in some cases).
Yes atheists tend to know more about religion than others, at least in the US. In Finland on the other hand, there are a lot of atheists who have no idea about any religion but still are antireligious zealots. It's almost as fun to debunk their ideas as it is doing that to fundamental christians ;D

Anyways, around here, just knowing about different religions, plus church history, doesn't mean you're going to become an atheist.

[ComradeMan]

Buddhism is relatively superior in this sense precisely because it is a form of spirituality that requires no worship of "higher powers" or "gods". Buddhas are technically only teachers, not intrinsically higher than humans. Humans cannot become gods (except in Religious Daoism), but everyone can potentially become a buddha. So it's a more humanist religion.

Of course, Lamaist Buddhism, like in pre-revolutionary Tibet, can also be extremely reactionary, but that's an organised religion.

So what's your position on buddhist views of Karma?

"karma may be socially and politically disempowering in its cultural effect, that without intending to do this, karma may in fact support social passivity or acquiescence in the face of oppression of various kinds"
Critical Questions Towards a Naturalized Concept of Karma in Buddhism"
Dale S. Wright Journal of Buddhist Ethics Volume 11, 2004 pg 81

"Karma has been used to rationalize racism, caste, economic oppression, birth handicaps and everything else. Taken literally, karma justifies the authority of political elites, who therefore must deserve their wealth and power, and the subordination of those who have neither. It provides the perfect theodicy: if there is an infallible cause-and-effect relationship between one's actions and one's fate, there is no need to work toward social justice, because it's already built into the moral fabric of the universe. In fact, if there is no undeserved suffering, there is really no evil that we need to struggle against. It will all balance out in the end."
David Loy: Money, Sex, War, Karma: Notes for a Buddhist Revolution. Wisdom Publications: 2008 pg 57

[Astarte]

So what's your position on buddhist views of Karma?

"karma may be socially and politically disempowering in its cultural effect, that without intending to do this, karma may in fact support social passivity or acquiescence in the face of oppression of various kinds"
Critical Questions Towards a Naturalized Concept of Karma in Buddhism"
Dale S. Wright Journal of Buddhist Ethics Volume 11, 2004 pg 81

"Karma has been used to rationalize racism, caste, economic oppression, birth handicaps and everything else. Taken literally, karma justifies the authority of political elites, who therefore must deserve their wealth and power, and the subordination of those who have neither. It provides the perfect theodicy: if there is an infallible cause-and-effect relationship between one's actions and one's fate, there is no need to work toward social justice, because it's already built into the moral fabric of the universe. In fact, if there is no undeserved suffering, there is really no evil that we need to struggle against. It will all balance out in the end."
David Loy: Money, Sex, War, Karma: Notes for a Buddhist Revolution. Wisdom Publications: 2008 pg 57

With matters of Karma, and Destiny, Hinduism, some brands of Taoism, and the ancient pagan religions of the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans justify their basis on astrology.