According to a recent Pew Forum study:
Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.
On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively. Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education.
I don’t find this surprising at all. In my own experience the more I studied Theology the more I doubted and the more I doubted the more I checked out other world religions to see if they might be a better fit. They all turned out to be worse fits than Christianity and the way my church and church school upbringing villainized atheism forced me to hold out as long as I could hold together my cognitive dissonance.
Since leaving my faith behind, I have tried to keep up with what’s going on in the religious world since, well, they’re the ones that are doing their best to curtail civil liberties and try to oppose science.
Nobody takes becoming an atheist lightly, a fact that this survey attests too. Oh and for the record, I took the quiz and got 100% and this is after a few beers…
Permalink
What have you observed the religious world doing that curtails civil liberties, and opposes science?
Permalink
A few examples of the religious world curtailing civil liberty –
1. Opposing marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples.
2. Supporting the maintenance of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
3. Numerous jurisdictions prohibit the sale of alcohol either before noon or for the whole day on Sunday.
4. Numerous jurisdictions allow for nativity displays on public property in December but do not allow displays from other religious groups or atheists.
5. State subsidy for religious organizations through faith based initiatives and other direct and indirect support.
6. A recent anti-blasphemy law in Ireland.
7. Recognition of Sharia law in the UK and parts of Canada.
8. The Tea Party.
9. Fundamentalist Islam.
10. Fundamentalist anything else.
As far as opposing science, that would be anything done this year by the Texas Board of Education and any group that opposes the teaching of evolution (science) and would rather people be taught creationism (religion).
Permalink
1. Speaking for myself, I do not believe that same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children because of the possible psychological harm that can come to the child being raised by a same sex couple (and yes a traditional couple should be barred from adopting if it is determined that it would not be a suitable environment for the child).
2. Again speaking for myself, the issue of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is of little concern to me. I do believe that homosexuality is a distortion created by the devil of something God created.
3. Having not read the laws that you are referring to, I can not comment directly on that, but if the motivation behind the law is for the religious reasons that you are alluding to, I can say that I do not agree with that.
4.Again, not having read the specific law referenced, I can not comment on the motivations of the law. Do atheists have nativities?
5. I would be interested to know what specifically you are talking about here. If an organization is using government funding, they can not use that to further their religion. At least that's the way it is supposed to be (student loans not withstanding).
6. This is quite shocking. What can i say but, I'm glad that law was not passed in this country.
7. Again, shocking. It is sad that countries are bending to fundamentalism like that.
8. As far as I can tell, the Tea Party has nothing to do with religious belief in regards to legislation. From what I have gathered, it is a grass roots organization that is dedicated to making the citizens of the country heard. There is nothing listed in their core beliefs that has to do with religion, unless you are citing that people involved with this organization are themselves religious.
9-10. I am not in favor of any form of fundamentalist religions. They misrepresent what their religions are about, and alienate people who do not truly understand that religion.
As for the Texas Board of Education, I do believe that if you are going to present one theory about the creation of this planet, the top opposing theory should also be presented. Just as Adventist schools should present evolution as an opposing theory to creationism. This would also promote critical thinking. From an article I read about this it did sound like that is what the Board of Education is trying to do. If i am mistaken and you have read something that says they are trying to approve a creationism only curriculum, please tell me where you have read that.
It makes me disappointed that people are misrepresenting what religion is all about (Adventism included). It is not about forcing people to believe as you do, but to be a representative of Christ, which, sadly, many people do not.
Permalink
1. Thanks for providing a great example of the civil rights opposition that results from religious delusions. There is absolutely no evidence that there is any more psychological harm to children that are raised by same sex couples than to children raised by traditional couples. Your position is based on that solely on your religious dogma, not on any evidence.
2. Seems odd that God would have allowed Satan to do that much to the mammal (including humans), reptile, and bird DNA to result in hundreds of species to engage in same sex relations. That being said, do you think that people should be punished for their natural born attractions involving consenting adults?
3. I can't possibly think of any non-religious motivation, so I guess we're on common ground on this one.
4. That seems beside the point since it's a purely religious display on public property that supports only one religion.
5. Again we are in agreement, but there are cases of public schools supporting religious indoctrination courses through allowing free use of the facilities and free copying and distribution of advertising, when any other group would have to pay. Faith based proselytizing support a variety of religious organizations, some of which provided services free of indoctrination and others who provide services at the expense of the government but tie it all to proselytizing.
6. Again we are agreed.
7. This is one reason why atheists keep an eye on what's going on in religious organizations, especially when they try to get a legal foothold.
8. I'll cover this more in depth in a future post. It's more in what the leaders of the movement say at rallies than what they actually put in writing that raises the red flags.
9-10. I would say that the adequately represent their flavor of their religions and subjugate those who are not part of their version of their religion.
With the "teach the controversy" argument that won in Texas, I would agree if there was an opposing theory that had any scientific merit. Unfortunately there isn't. They did more in Texas than that, they also replaced Thomas Jefferson with John Calvin as being one of the top movers in American thought. How could that one be anything but religiously motivated?
Permalink
I will be looking forward to your thoughts on the Tea Party movement.
Permalink
I will be looking forward to your thoughts on the Tea Party movement.