Atheists outperform "protheists" on religion test

There was a 10-question sample on one net article, and the questions struck me as mostly amazingly simple. Like asking "what color is the back of a greenback?"

The question of leading a class in prayer being answered correctly by 89% sounds better at first glance than it actually is. As Matt Young points out, that answer is simply consistent with the overall "understanding" that religion has been outlawed in schools. So the pattern of answers was: they can't lead prayers, they can't read from the bible, they can't discuss religion even comparatively, teachers have to avoid all mention of religion under all circumstances.

Now they should compare knowledge of science between the two groups. Or even more so, compare the knowledge of science by those who accept evolution, and those who do not.

Glen Davidson

This is definitely in keeping with what I've experienced, I know way more Atheists who have read the bible than I do Christians.

~Rhaco

You can get the full report here. Right-hand side, look for "VIII. Download Full Report (3MB PDF)."

If you want to see a good example of a self proclaimed christian who doesn't understand the bible, just go over to the bathroom wall where one has spewed 350 pages of nonsense.

I took the 15 question version on the Pew Forum site. Had a total brain-fart on the Jewish Sabbath one (forgot the technicality about when it starts; really ashamed of that one as one of my favorite instructors was an increasingly-observant Jew and we often talked religion between classes) and I confess to not knowing the answer for the last question, about the first Great Awakening. Wound up with 13/15. After passing the quiz around to everybody I know, the lowest score reported back to me was 11/15. All my friends are above average! Is... is this what it's like to be in Mensa? ;)

That test is extremely basic (you can see what the questions were via eric's link above).

I knew all the answers without even looking at the multiple choices, except for Edwards and the "first awakening". And that one was pretty easy after I eliminated Billy Graham.

Anyway, I've said many times that Americans make vague claims to be religious, but are not religious in behavior. It's also been shown by comparing church attendance claims with church parking lot vehicle counts on Sunday and so on.

Traditional Christian denominations provided major support for the civil rights movement. Since then, most of what is called Christianity has been just a backlash - actually an Orwellian device to allow people whose goals are mean-spirited, short-sighted, selfish in a foolish way, and largely motivated by unjustified hate and irrational fear, to claim to be "moral". If all you know about the Bible is that some guy said that some other guy said that the Bible says it's okay to stick it to the homos, and that you can do anything you want and still get 72 virgins eternal life if you say a magic formula every once in a while, well then, you probably won't be able to identify the basic theme of the Book of Job, and you probably won't care.

I'm not anti-religion, don't use the term "atheist", but most peoples' religious claims, which I rarely care about, are usually at best harmless cultural characteristics and at worst enabling defenses which validate destructive behavior.

You can get the full report ....

With regard to the term atheist - I meet some peoples' definition of the term and am not offended in the least to have it applied to me.

I simply slightly prefer the more accurate term "apatheist".

To echo Flint above, it was interesting to me that after I did the 15-question sampler on the Pew site, I was reviewing the breakdown of how different groups answered specific questions. The white evangelicals seemed to correctly understand that a teacher shall not lead a class prayer (over 90% got it right), but only 11% of them understood that using the bible for comparative literature is okay by the SCOTUS.
While their misunderstanding of the law is reflective of their overall culture-war/Xian persecution complex, I see it as a GOOD thing that they don't think they can use the bible for comparative literature. I am thinking of all the secular kids being spared the nonsense and stealth proselytizing.

Wheels said: I took the 15 question version on the Pew Forum site. Had a total brain-fart on the Jewish Sabbath one (forgot the technicality about when it starts; really ashamed of that one as one of my favorite instructors was an increasingly-observant Jew and we often talked religion between classes) and I confess to not knowing the answer for the last question, about the first Great Awakening. Wound up with 13/15. After passing the quiz around to everybody I know, the lowest score reported back to me was 11/15. All my friends are above average! Is... is this what it's like to be in Mensa? ;)

Most peoples religious identification is more tribal than devotional so it's not surprising that they aren't up on the details. It costs nothing to say that you believe in god and it helps to stay solid with your friends and family.
It's been said before but bears repeating that once you get down to actually studying what the scriptures say, your faith suffers so it's not surprising that atheists know them better.

I’d be curious to see the overall score of all PT posters (pro evolution vs con)

It's been said before but bears repeating that once you get down to actually studying what the scriptures say, your faith suffers so it's not surprising that atheists know them better.

I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people. Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That’s how you make atheists.

What got me was the Martin Luther question. 47% of Protestants? Seriously? How can you call yourself protestant when you don't know who did the actual protesting or what they were protesting about.

The only rational explanation I could come up with is, 53% of the time a five-year-old answered the phone.

~=Apatheist, scored 15 (eliminated Billy G and then guessed the last question).
Of course, growing up in the UK, I got 45 minutes of religious instruction/education a week, and a daily act of collective worship. It's the law...

You asked for it, Jason. I'm only an occasional PT poster, but a longtime atheist, and my score was 15/15, though I had to guess on the last question too.

Just for the record: 15 correct out of 15. Affiliation: former Evangelical Protestant convert to Eastern Orthodox Christianity. (didn't see any stats for Orthodox test takers at the site).

As I mentioned above, another 15/15 (might not have gotten the Edwards question if there had been more plausible wrong choices).

Apatheist, raised in a rural Baptist church in Canada; irregular attendance as a child, but all holidays. Never experienced any abuse or nastiness.

15/15: guessed on the last question as well. Affiliation: former Lutheran (minnesota type)and now knows that god(s) does(do) not exist after having read the bible three times (I can be a little slow). (is that a non-theist?)

Re: Low scores for fundagelicals - What can you expect from a cultural pattern that values scientific illiteracy and takes pride in its willful ignorance? And now we see it's not just about evolution and science, but even their own religion - that's some serious mental illness.

Some (most?) of that "nothing in particular" group will be the fluffy-brained people who regard themselves as "spiritual" (and believe in angels, healing crystals etc etc), since they don't seem to have been given another option on the poll with which to identify themselves more closely. It would fit very well with their level of ignorance of the specifics of religion.

DNA_Jock said: ...Of course, growing up in the UK, I got 45 minutes of religious instruction/education a week, and a daily act of collective worship. It's the law...

The Founding Mothers said: Hee hee, what fun! Full marks for me too, although I had to guess Joseph Smith's religion and the 1st Great Awakener. Grew up with the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian/Calvinist), but never quite managed to let Jebus into my heart, so was nevr really a Xian.

DNA_Jock said: ...Of course, growing up in the UK, I got 45 minutes of religious instruction/education a week, and a daily act of collective worship. It's the law...

DNA_Jock: you didn't have the misfortune to go to a perverts' paradise state run catholic school, did you? I had the Religious Education classes once a week for 2 years in high school, but not the daily brainwashing.

I bet FL would have failed this one, but only because "Jesus rode a velociraptor into town that day" was not a valid response to any of the questions.

The atheist probes for answers, and finding none, rejects the unsubstantiated supernatural claims of the pious. The believer, on the other hand, blindly accepts what he's led to believe without question and need not trouble himself to ask for any kind of evidence.

15/15. Read the whole thing cover-to-cover several times in various English translations, plus large bits in Luther's German Rendition, and a fair bit of the Greek stuff in Greek.

Some (most?) of that “nothing in particular” group will be the fluffy-brained people who regard themselves as “spiritual” (and believe in angels, healing crystals etc etc), since they don’t seem to have been given another option on the poll with which to identify themselves more closely. It would fit very well with their level of ignorance of the specifics of religion.

Wheels said:

While many people here may have forgotten Edwards' name, I bet they will recall his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." It's the one that likens Yahweh to a sadist holding a spider over a candle flame—and yes, that's meant to make you want to worship Yahweh.

I got 15/15, but I have no idea what a Great Awakening is. And it's a little unfair that I heard about the poll before taking it.

I'm an atheist and regular PT reader, though I just make the occasional asinine comment.

I'm sure that creationists will be thrilled to see how many PT readers admit to being atheists.

I remember reading “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” in 7th grade, but I don't think the teacher told us why it was worth reading.

15/15. Raised Lutheran, married Protestant, now a former Episcopal.

It would have been interesting if the questions had been confined to Judeo-Christian theology. I've always suspected that many Christian fundamentalists have little more than a "Child's First Bible Stories" understanding even of their own religion.

Remember the 15 question poll is a short form. The actual one had 32 religious questions (and a handful of general knowledge question such as who is the US vice president).

15/15 -- practicing Presbyterian (possibly why I got the Jonathan Edwards question correct). I suspect that most of my church friends would have done better than average on the quiz, but my congregation is probably more intellectual than average.

Based on what I've seen in the comments on Panda's Thumb, the Pew results are no surprise.

15/15 It was luck on the last since I was not certain.

15/15. But I, too, eliminated Billy Graham (oh, how I wish I could!) and guessed between the other two, on the last question.

I see that the results show pretty close to a standard distribution (bell-shaped curve), which would indicate that they are measuring some consistent quality in the population.

15/15. I took educated guesses on a few I was not certain on.

The results of this and other similar tests really shouldn't be surprising. It's a little late to be realizing that people are extremely ill-informed about almost everything. It is simply a fact of the natural history of human beings that people of average intelligence have little curiosity and are actually quite stupid. Literate people perpetually overestimate how smart the generality of mankind is because they very seldom interact with folks with IQs below 110. An accident of sampling problem.

I was disappointed with the absence of more relevant questions on the test. I looked at the whole thing: it never probes beyond the usual multiple-choice, trivial pursuits level of knowledge. It would be very interesting to learn, how many American Christians think that Muslims worship a different God than they do. I'd also like to know if a significant minority of Americans have any understanding of the traditional Islamic understanding of the status of Christianity and Judaism (the Peoples of the Book). I'm not upset that most folks are ignorant. What I'm afraid of is that even the people who ought to have some significant knowledge don't have it.

14/15 from an atheist with couple of lucky guesses.

I lost out on the Great Awakening question so I can only presume my alarm clock didn't go off for that one and I missed it all.

14/15.

Dave Luckett said: I see that the results show pretty close to a standard distribution (bell-shaped curve), which would indicate that they are measuring some consistent quality in the population.

I got 15 out of 15, I'm Mormon and glad to see at least we are up there with Jews and athiests.

The Founding Mothers said: ... i.e., we expect less than 0.0006% of the population to get them all wrong: that's about 2 people out of 3400.

Jim Harrison said: Literate people perpetually overestimate how smart the generality of mankind is because they very seldom interact with folks with IQs below 110.

I just spent some time looking at the survey results in a little more detail. It would appear that the reason atheists/agnostics scored significantly higher overall is because they had broader knowledge of religion overall and a better understanding of the legal situation in the US.

Also, the full report has an interesting factor analysis showing clearly the effects of, for example, education, religious affiliation, and political affiliation all else equal.

Jim wrote:

"Literate people perpetually overestimate how smart the generality of mankind is because they very seldom interact with folks with IQs below 110. An accident of sampling problem."

Yea, well I don't know what country you live in, but in my country half of the people have and IQ below 100 and some of them are even dumber than that. Talk about lack of knowledge, one third of the people think that manual labor is the president of Mexico. Twenty percent think that a quarter pounder is bigger than a third pounder. Some don't even know what date the fourth of July is on this year. Twenty five percent cannot answer the question - if a plane crashed on the side of a mountain, where would they bury the survivors? Fifteen percent defined a paradox as any time two people with PhD degrees got together. No wonder fifty percent think that humans used to ride around on dinosaurs.

Helena Constantine said: While many people here may have forgotten Edwards' name, I bet they will recall his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."

15/15 for me. I didn't need to guess about Jonathan Edwards, because I remember Randall Balmer discussing the Great Awakening in his A+ essay "Jesus is Not a Republican".
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/back023.html

Oops! Balmer never mentions Edwards by name, but the article led me to reading more about the Awakening.

Steve said: ... I'm Mormon and glad to see at least we are up there with Jews and athiests.

14/15 for me.

Of all the ones I had to miss it was which religion seeks to achieve nirvana. Duh! What was I thinking?

I guess I'm not on track for nirvana.

Mike Elzinga said: 14/15 for me. Of all the ones I had to miss it was which religion seeks to achieve nirvana. Duh! What was I thinking? I guess I'm not on track for nirvana.

I'm varying between Athiest and Agnostic, depending upon weather, mood, and how recently a friend/relative/important person was diagnosed with potentially fatal illness (or died).

I took the whole test, and only missed the Great Awakening question, which is more historic than religious. But 31 out of 32 seemed pretty good to me. Still no urge to take communion, wine is OK, crackers too, but imagining the body and blood takes away the appetite.

My Mom was agnostic and my Dad atheist, until Mom neared death, when she became more atheist, and then Dad began to hope for an afterlife to be with Mom again, so he became more agnostic in his last few years.

Mom was brave, and fought hard to stay alive to vote against Dole and GHWBush on account of their pandering to the religious on abortion.

Carry on.

The Founding Mothers -

I'm saying this off the top of my head, so feel free to rip mistakes, but...

The actual underlying distribution a binomial (if we simply and assume the same "p" for each correct answer, and assume that we are sampling from a single population), with p = .5 and n = 15 (or 32 for the whole thing).

(If we assume different p for different answers it gets a bit more complicated, as it does if we assume sampling from more than one population.)

If I recall correctly, either Poisson or Normal provides an excellent approximation of the binomial (although Poisson is discrete and Normal is continuous, they both have the advantage of being much easier to work with). But Poisson is usually best when p = .05 or less and n is large.

(Okay, I broke down and checked on Wikipedia - "The Poisson distribution can be derived as a limiting case to the binomial distribution as the number of trials goes to infinity and the expected number of successes remains fixed (note by me - that's how it was invented) — see law of rare events below. Therefore it can be used as an approximation of the binomial distribution if n is sufficiently large and p is sufficiently small. There is a rule of thumb stating that the Poisson distribution is a good approximation of the binomial distribution if n is at least 20 and p is smaller than or equal to 0.05, and an excellent approximation if n ≥ 100 and np ≤ 10.[2]")

So Normal is probably a decent approximation here as well - arguably better.

(In reality, with academic type tests like this, where the correct answers are something that can be learned by study, there's often an underlying dichotomy - essentially you're sampling from two populations. There's the population of people who actually cared enough to study the topic seriously - grossly over-represented at PT in this case - and the population of everyone else. Since the special population scores higher on average, there will be a skew toward very high scores if you look at the overall score distribution as a sample from a single population. There are ways to deal with that when it matters.)

A "trivia" question that is among my favorites was given to me my a young woman of Jewish background who had converted to Christianity. PT readers might find it simple but get it wrong anyhow: "How many places were set at the Last Supper?"

I'll explain the answer in my next post.

Let's not forget that it is multiple choice. Assuming that respondents guess if they don't know an answer, then 7.5 correct answers corresponds to someone knowing the answer to 25% of the questions and guessing the rest. The much-maligned monkey would expect to get 4.9 answers correct, on average.
Those people scoring 0 or 1 are performing significantly worse than the MMM; they probably represent that well-known sub-population in Market Research: "people who like to eff with the survey". Unfortunately, they tend to lie about their demographic info too, so trying to break them out by religion is unsound.

Wouldn't you think that most Athiests would know more about religion because if you are an athiest you have thought a whole lot about it before becoming one? Most people don't become athiests on a whim. On the other hand many, many people claim a religion because they always have and never thought about it one bit in their life. I bet sincere believers in a religion would have higher scores about their own faith at least. I just think the culturally religious bring the others scores down and there are very few culturally athiests out there.

kevin said: Wouldn't you think that most Athiests would know more about religion because if you are an athiest you have thought a whole lot about it before becoming one?

tomh said: I did have the advantage of an extremely atheistic father, whose only interest in religion was in keeping it out of government.

The leaders of many religions would discourage their subject from learning about other religions.

No suprise then in a test asking questions about many religions that athiest do better.

30/32
Atheist (and proud of it because it annoys the sh*t out of my fundamentalist, Republican, Limbaugh-loving sister)

harold said: The Founding Mothers - I'm saying this off the top of my head, so feel free to rip mistakes, but... The actual underlying distribution a binomial (if we simply and assume the same "p" for each correct answer, and assume that we are sampling from a single population), with p = .5 and n = 15 (or 32 for the whole thing).

14/15, again the last one wrong due to guessing. Given that only 7-15% of people from any group got that one right (i.e. far less than picking randomly), I'm going to bet that most people haven't even heard of the Great Awakening and picked Billy Graham because it was the only familiar name.

Jim Harrison said: I was disappointed with the absence of more relevant questions on the test. I looked at the whole thing: it never probes beyond the usual multiple-choice, trivial pursuits level of knowledge. It would be very interesting to learn, how many American Christians think that Muslims worship a different God than they do.

Dornier Pfeil said: This is only anecdotal from my own personal experience, but the people I interact with in the south would say immediately that Islam is not Abrahamic in origin. I have lost track of how many times I have heard exactly this phrase: "They don't worship god, they worship allah."

... the Christian God and the Muslim God cannot possibly be the same God, since the Christian one is triune and the Muslim one is radically one.

A professor recommended this site for a better understanding of the criticisms by scientists against intelligent design. I am a believer but in no way a fan of ID. But the very fact that Panda's Thumb publishes this discussion confirms the impression that acceptance of evolutionary theory as good science (which I most certainly think it is) goes hand in hand with hostility toward theism.

Wouldn't it be wiser just to talk about science?

I am a left-wing, evolution-accepting Episcopalian. I got 15/15 on the test without blinking. Doesn't prove a thing. Neither does this survey -- about personal intelligence or the intrinsic merits of being Christian or anything else, that is.

This test is, to paraphrase the Pew's own conclusions, little more than a measure of educational attainment: see p. 46 of the complete report, which begins, "These analyses confirm that educational attainment is far and away the single leading predictor of higher religious knowledge." Educational attainment, in turn, is a reliable measure of class, a fact on which there is a large sociological literature: see, e.g., "On class differentials in educational attainment," http://www.pnas.org/content/102/27/9730.full.pdf .

So basically all this sneering and jeering about religious ignoramuses is nothing but contempt of those whom our educational and economic systems cheat and neglect. Shaming the victim.

"Atheists outperform protheists" is a tendentiously selective characterization of this survey: "Educated people know more stuff than uneducated people" would be fair. Though not nearly so conducive to self-congratulation for -- apparently -- much of the Thumb's clientele.

Leo Leblanc said: Wouldn't it be wiser just to talk about science?

Leo Leblanc said: A professor recommended this site for a better understanding of the criticisms by scientists against intelligent design. I am a believer but in no way a fan of ID. But the very fact that Panda's Thumb publishes this discussion confirms the impression that acceptance of evolutionary theory as good science (which I most certainly think it is) goes hand in hand with hostility toward theism. Wouldn't it be wiser just to talk about science?

"Wouldn't it be wiser just to talk about science?"

It would be. It is a pity how often discourse on the Thumb turns into a self-congratulatory circle-jerk by evangelical atheists whose putatitive willingness to "doubt" consists a towering certainty that they are very smart, everyone else very dumb.

Your professor misdirected you, I'm afraid. The best place to get a "better understanding of the criticisms by scientists against intelligent design theory" resides not here, in fact not on the Internet at all, but in the many excellent books written by scientists responding to Intelligent Design. Here are two:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Darwin-Matters-Against-Intelligent/dp/0805081216

http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/0143115669/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285956684&sr=1-11

The former is by a non-theist science writer, Michael Shermer: the latter is by a Christian biologist, Kenneth Miller.

If speed is of the essence, for scientific answers to Intelligent Design arguments I recommend the excellent website TalkDesign.org -- see their FAQs, as a starter, perhaps:

http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/td_faq

Good hunting!

Leo Leblanc said: Wouldn't it be wiser just to talk about science?

mrg said: . . . it ends up being an argument over relgion, period.

Larry Gilman said: If we wanted to argue about either science or religion, it's hard to see why we would discuss the latest Pew test at all ...

Matt Young said:

... the Christian God and the Muslim God cannot possibly be the same God, since the Christian one is triune and the Muslim one is radically one.

So then the Christian god is not the same as the Jewish god? You know, the god in what Christians call the Old Testament?

mrg said: Being an apatheist, if people want to bicker over religion, what can I say? Well, nothing, which is why I generally stay out of such discussions.

Larry Gilman said: Fair enough: De gustibus etc. Although I admit that I find it astonishing that anyone could really find religion so utterly boring.

Matt Young said:

... the Christian God and the Muslim God cannot possibly be the same God, since the Christian one is triune and the Muslim one is radically one.

So then the Christian god is not the same as the Jewish god? You know, the god in what Christians call the Old Testament?

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Matt Young said:

... the Christian God and the Muslim God cannot possibly be the same God, since the Christian one is triune and the Muslim one is radically one.

So then the Christian god is not the same as the Jewish god? You know, the god in what Christians call the Old Testament?

Yep. At its core, a god can be defined by the beliefs about it.

eric said: *And we always have to recognize the possibility that both could be misinformed...I could be ambidextrous.

As another apatheist, it's not that I find learning about religion dull. I find participating in most religious ceremonies (other than concerts of good music) dull, but learing about religion can be quite interesting.

For me, the root of apatheism is that I'm satisfied with the ethics and view of the universe that I've come to on my own.

I'm not looking for some magical reward that I can only get after I'm dead. And as for hell, I'm adamantly opposed to it for anyone. So I'm certainly not going to indulge in religious behavior as a response to threats of hell.

So, with the caveat that I don't believe in the supernatural personally, and that religious views that overtly contradict reality must be wrong, I really have no way of knowing who is wrong or right, and no reason to care.

Leo Leblanc said: Wouldn’t it be wiser just to talk about science?

Panda's Thumb "about": And now it is a weblog giving another voice for the defenders of the integrity of science, the patrons of “The Panda’s Thumb”. Much as in any tavern serving a university community, you can expect to hear a variety of levels of discussion, ranging from the picayune to the pedantic. The authors are people associated with the virtual University of Ediacara (and thus the talk.origins newsgroup), and various web sites critical of the antievolution movement, such as the TalkOrigins Archive, TalkDesign, and Antievolution.org.

On the last supper trivia, I'll guess 14 places. IIRC, the Jews for Passover set a place for the prophet Elija and the last supper was at Passover.

I really have no way of knowing who is wrong or right, and no reason to care.

If we discovered, somehow, maybe through a deity "personal appearance" that one of them actually WAS right (about the existence of said deity), but that group also wanted to tear down all scientific endeavor.

would you care then?

somehow, your position less strikes me as "agnostic" as it does "lazy" and "selfish".

but hey, pronounce away. nobody is gonna take away your soapbox.

In fact, one of the saddest features (in my mind) of kick-boxing polemicists like Dawkins is their manifest incuriosity about religion even on anthropological, historical, and psychological terms – the thing itself, all its amazing variety.

you know nothing about Richard Dawkins.

you should stop pretending you do.

I am very sorry that Mr. Gilman thought my title was tendentious; I intended it merely as an attention grabber, and I could not exactly steal the Times's headline. The correlation with income or social class (if I may dare to use the latter term) is not surprising, but it was not reflected in the Times article on which I was reporting.

The problem, in any case, is not that people at The Panda's Thumb sneer at people who are less educated than they are. Rather, the problem is the substantial number of scientific ignoramuses who post comments on PT and, as I said in the article, think they know more than the experts. If the Pew poll is anything to go by, then they know as little about religion as they know about science. I regard that statement as a neutral fact, just like the statement that belief in God decreases with increasing education. I regret that some people may misconstrue those statements as sneering.

The correlation with income or social class (if I may dare to use the latter term) is not surprising, but it was not reflected in the Times article on which I was reporting.

“Even after all these other factors, including education, are taken into account, atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons still outperform all the other religious groups in our survey,” said Greg Smith, a senior researcher at Pew.

If we discovered, somehow, maybe through a deity “personal appearance” that one of them actually WAS right (about the existence of said deity), but that group also wanted to tear down all scientific endeavor. would you care then?

somehow, your position less strikes me as “agnostic” as it does “lazy” and “selfish”.

but hey, pronounce away. nobody is gonna take away your soapbox.

I bet FL would have failed this one, but only because “Jesus rode a velociraptor into town that day” was not a valid response to any of the questions.

In general, PT *does* discuss science…right up until one of the various trolls shows up and tries to claim that the scientists are ALL WRONG and creationism is RIGHT.

FL said:

In general, PT *does* discuss science…right up until one of the various trolls shows up and tries to claim that the scientists are ALL WRONG and creationism is RIGHT.

Not true, Mr. Heydt. For example, THIS thread did not originate as a response to some "creationist troll", but was offered for its own sake by an evolutionist.

What "derailment", Mr. Heydt? My first post is a straightforward response to a Pandas poster who specifically mentioned me, (and my response clearly referred back to the OP topic, did you notice?).

My second post simply addressed a point you attempted to make. It's not too difficult to find more examples of overt PT religious discussion. For example, this one:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/04/a-theological-p.html

So, "in general", you Pandas like to discuss religion whenever it suits you (and that's rather often), not just science only. You honestly do.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Why not simply own up to it?

FL

FL said: Other atheists, of course, are so steeped in Biblical illiteracy that they can barely spell the word "God", let alone rationally discuss why they are actin' a fool and spitting in His face! Christians and churches really need to catch up on their "religious knowledge", so they can do a better job of reaching out to people. There IS a huge need for more Bible teaching (as well as theology and apologetics) in many American churches today. At the same time, to adapt a line from William Barclay, "Religious knowledge can't change a man (or woman), but Christ can." Just a thought. Bottom Line: atheism and agnosticism have NOTHING to offer you in this life, and they'll suck a lot worse in the next. Honestly, if ya gotta go to Hell, at least don't go down with THOSE particular labels stuck to your butt. Sheesh!

It enrages you because you’re an impotently raging authoritarian, and a more tolerant attitude makes you feel dissonance.

absolute bullshit.

like I said, nobody's gonna take away your soapbox here, but don't get it into your head you have a clue.

FL said: Side note for Leo: stick around and observe things a while. Eventually you'll find that evolution is as much about religious belief, (a very negative religious belief called materialism), as it is about "science".

The fact is that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. (Irreconcilably, irreparably, and intractably incompatible.)

FL said:

I bet FL would have failed this one, but only because “Jesus rode a velociraptor into town that day” was not a valid response to any of the questions.

Oh, I don't know about all that. My own favorite is the CARM theology test, btw. ( http://carm.org/theological-test )

At any rate, I'd like to think I can do a passing score on most of 'em. Meanwhile, this NYT article doesn't bother me, even though I do believe that some (but only some) atheists would indeed score higher than some Christians on a "religious knowledge" test.

Other atheists, of course, are so steeped in Biblical illiteracy that they can barely spell the word "God", let alone rationally discuss why they are actin' a fool and spitting in His face!

Bottom Line: atheism and agnosticism have NOTHING to offer you in this life, and they'll suck a lot worse in the next. Honestly, if ya gotta go to Hell, at least don't go down with THOSE particular labels stuck to your butt. Sheesh!

I am a left-wing, evolution-accepting Episcopalian.

I got 15/15 on the test without blinking. Doesn’t prove a thing.

Neither does this survey – about personal intelligence or the intrinsic merits of being Christian or anything else, that is.

This test is, to paraphrase the Pew’s own conclusions, little more than a measure of educational attainment: see p. 46 of the complete report, which begins, “These analyses confirm that educational attainment is far and away the single leading predictor of higher religious knowledge.” Educational attainment, in turn, is a reliable measure of class, a fact on which there is a large sociological literature: see, e.g., “On class differentials in educational attainment,” http://www.pnas.org/content/102/27/9730.full.pdf .

So basically all this sneering and jeering about religious ignoramuses is nothing but contempt of those whom our educational and economic systems cheat and neglect. Shaming the victim.

“Atheists outperform protheists” is a tendentiously selective characterization of this survey: “Educated people know more stuff than uneducated people” would be fair. Though not nearly so conducive to self-congratulation for – apparently – much of the Thumb’s clientele.

FL said: Side note for Leo: stick around and observe things a while. Eventually you'll find that evolution is as much about religious belief, (a very negative religious belief called materialism), as it is about "science". The fact is that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. (Irreconcilably, irreparably, and intractably incompatible.)

Dale Husband said:

FL said: Side note for Leo: stick around and observe things a while. Eventually you'll find that evolution is as much about religious belief, (a very negative religious belief called materialism), as it is about "science". The fact is that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. (Irreconcilably, irreparably, and intractably incompatible.)

Even if that were true, that wouldn't disprove evolution. You are just bigoted against materialism and for Christianity, of course. And bigots are BIG BABIES!

Do you really believe in a God who is a lying, bigoted egomaniac like yourself?

FL said: Bottom Line: atheism and agnosticism have NOTHING to offer you in this life, and they'll suck a lot worse in the next. Honestly, if ya gotta go to Hell, at least don't go down with THOSE particular labels stuck to your butt. Sheesh!

Re: FL subthread.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

FL said: note for Leo: stick around and observe things a while. Eventually you'll find that evolution is as much about religious belief, (a very negative religious belief called materialism), as it is about "science".

The fact is that Evolution is incompatible with [FL's particular sectarian quasi-literalist-except-when-its-not version of] Christianity. (Irreconcilably, irreparably, and intractably incompatible.)

W. H. Heydt said: Re: FL subthread. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

My background is as a "materialistic" engineer. I never realized engineering was really a religion.

I guess I still don't. Of course, maybe there's such a thing as "nonmaterialistic" engineering, but I don't know what it is, and to the extent I can imagine it, I don't think I'd want to get on a jetliner that was designed according to "nonmaterialistic" principles.

mrg said: My background is as a "materialistic" engineer. I never realized engineering was really a religion. I guess I still don't. Of course, maybe there's such a thing as "nonmaterialistic" engineering, but I don't know what it is, and to the extent I can imagine it, I don't think I'd want to get on a jetliner that was designed according to "nonmaterialistic" principles.

mrg said: ...Of course, maybe there's such a thing as "nonmaterialistic" engineering, but I don't know what it is, and to the extent I can imagine it, I don't think I'd want to get on a jetliner that was designed according to "nonmaterialistic" principles.

Well I'm an atheist and got 100% Perhaps as an atheist it's not for me to say but many Christians who are most vocal seem not only ignorant of their religion, but seem to have attitudes contrary to its most sublime teachings.

FL said: Oh, I don't know about all that. My own favorite is the CARM theology test, btw. ( http://carm.org/theological-test )

I shouldn't like to sneer, but what is one to do? FL; Fucking Loon! Does this tar all Chritianists with the same brush of wilful ignorance? No; but imagine the tiny universe they ALL inhabit, the little spheres of their lives, and chuckles bubble up, quite uninvited:)

Did anyone else notice that, despite his usual bluster, FL never mentioned actually taking the online test or what score he got (not that he couldn't just lie about his result anyway)?

On the other hand, he does link to a laughable Christian apologetics quiz, showing that he has completely missed the point about general religious knowledge, as opposed to knowing details about his own particular denomination's theology. It's almost as if he doesn't consider religions other than his own to be all that important, isn't it?

As for me (atheist), I too got a perfect score on the online Pew quiz, but I admit I did have to take an educated guess at the last one. Having read the NYT article beforehand also preinformed me on a couple of others, but that still leaves a good 12 out of 15 that I could definitively answer on my own.

Overall, I'd have to agree with the poster who called this trivial pursuit-level knowledge. While it's good to know generally about things like what the Great Awakening was, remembering details like the names of the major players are much less important in the grand scheme of things, as they are relatively easy to look up if and when necessary.

On the other hand, I suppose that the aggregate measurements can still give a reasonable picture of the overall level of religious knowledge in the population, as those with more general awareness of a subject are consequently also more likely to know specific details about it. I would certainly like to see a more in-depth follow up though that goes beyond 32 simple multiple-choice questions and really delves in-depth into the true level of knowledge among the various sub-groups.

FL said: Bottom Line: atheism and agnosticism have NOTHING to offer you in this life, and they'll suck a lot worse in the next.

eric said: that argument, but you only follow one. Why? Why not protect yourself from the other possible hells?

eric said:

FL said: Bottom Line: atheism and agnosticism have NOTHING to offer you in this life, and they'll suck a lot worse in the next.

Many religions make that argument, but you only follow one. Why? Why not protect yourself from the other possible hells? As the saying goes - when you admit why you reject all the other religions, you may understand why atheists reject yours. Lastly, if there is a God I doubt he'd be particularly pleased with people who worship as a mere base-covering exercise.

When I first circulated a draft of this book, a philosopher told me that my discussion of the Ontological Argument was so bad he could not help me improve it. Later, a physician read a slightly expanded manuscript and asked why I had wasted so much time on an obviously fatuous argument like the Ontological Argument. An engineer, reading the same manuscript, wrote in the margin, next to the Ontological Argument, "This is nonsense---are you sure you got it right?"

Matt Young said: Pascal's wager, besides being hypocritical, works equally well if you think there might be a devil who will consign you to hell for believing in God. If you think there may be both a god and a devil, and the odds are equally likely, then your chance of going to heaven is reduced to 50 %.

Matt Young said: When I first circulated a draft of this book, a philosopher told me that my discussion of the Ontological Argument was so bad he could not help me improve it.

An engineer, reading the same manuscript, wrote in the margin, next to the Ontological Argument, "This is nonsense---are you sure you got it right?"

Did anyone else notice that, despite his usual bluster, FL never mentioned actually taking the online test or what score he got (not that he couldn’t just lie about his result anyway,?)

So step up to the plate, all ye Pandas. Put your darwinian neurons to the REAL test, with a Creationism Quiz!!

A very strange test. From the first question, I would think that giving the correct answers would give a score of zero. I didn't go on to the second.

I understand what you're saying Mrg, but....it's a quiz on biblical creationism, NOT a quiz on evolution.

Taking the test in its entirety, is a good way to check out some of the huge differences between what the Bible teaches and what evolution teaches.

(Also a good way to test what you personaly know or don't know about creationism at this time.)

FL

I love it how you finish the bloody stupid set of questions - I got 40%, by the way, answering with my theist hat on for the nonce - and what you get at the end is an ad for a loans company.

"Christian" it isn't. But then, neither is FL.

Taking the test in its entirety, is a good way to check out some of the huge differences between what the Bible teaches and what evolution teaches.

I'd pose the question of why I would want to know that -- but then you might think I wanted an answer.

FL said: I understand what you're saying Mrg, but....it's a quiz on biblical creationism, NOT a quiz on evolution. Taking the test in its entirety, is a good way to check out some of the huge differences between what the Bible teaches and what evolution teaches. (Also a good way to test what you personaly know or don't know about creationism at this time.) FL

mrg said:

Taking the test in its entirety, is a good way to check out some of the huge differences between what the Bible teaches and what evolution teaches.

I'd pose the question of why I would want to know that -- but then you might think I wanted an answer.

Evolution doesn't "teach". It explains the evident inter-relatedness of pretty much everything living thing, the nested hierarchies of concurrent species, the geographic and temporal (time-line) nearness of close relatives, the correlations between genetic and anatomical and biochemical differences, the observed small changes over time in some living species, and no doubt lots of other things that an actual biologist could think of; this list is off the top of the head of an amateur in the subject.

Henry J

FL said: I understand what you're saying Mrg, but....it's a quiz on biblical creationism, NOT a quiz on evolution. Taking the test in its entirety, is a good way to check out some of the huge differences between what the Bible teaches and what evolution teaches. (Also a good way to test what you personaly know or don't know about creationism at this time.) FL

FL said: I understand what you're saying Mrg, but....it's a quiz on biblical creationism, NOT a quiz on evolution. Taking the test in its entirety, is a good way to check out some of the huge differences between what the Bible teaches and what evolution teaches. (Also a good way to test what you personaly know or don't know about creationism at this time.) FL

Dave Luckett said: I love it how you finish the bloody stupid set of questions - I got 40%, by the way, answering with my theist hat on for the nonce - and what you get at the end is an ad for a loans company. "Christian" it isn't. But then, neither is FL.

Malchus said: ...Any Christian can accept evolution and still be a Christian.

FL said: So step up to the plate, all ye Pandas. Put your darwinian neurons to the REAL test, with a Creationism Quiz!! (I'd wish you luck, except I don't believe in luck. Sorry!)

FL said: I understand what you're saying Mrg, but....it's a quiz on biblical creationism, NOT a quiz on evolution.

FL said:

Did anyone else notice that, despite his usual bluster, FL never mentioned actually taking the online test or what score he got (not that he couldn’t just lie about his result anyway,?)

15 out of 15, honestly. (I'm sure you're being honest about your reported score too.) FL

Couldn't resist adding my comment as I took the test and got 100%. Not only am I an atheist but I'm English into the bargain!

The only thing that annoyed me was I couldn't say so on the on-line test.

FL said: Oh, I don't know about all that. My own favorite is the CARM theology test, btw. ( http://carm.org/theological-test )

I will stop beating my wife [] Now [] Tomorrow [] Next week [] Never.

In the unlikely event that I ever decide to announce to the press that I am considering not beating my wife, the fallacious tissue of lies that I will attempt to fob off on the public will be [] It was a mistake. Everybody makes mistakes. [] She deserves it, but I am merciful. [] I'm tired of trying to explain the difference between "love taps" and "beating". [] I'm tired of trying to explain the footage that shows up on youtube every few days.

FL said: **** Side note for Leo: stick around and observe things a while. Eventually you'll find that evolution is as much about religious belief, (a very negative religious belief called materialism), as it is about "science". The fact is that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. (Irreconcilably, irreparably, and intractably incompatible.) That constant element of tension, generates much interest and ensures that discussion of assorted religious topics will regularly surface within one thread or another. Enjoy! FL

jasonmitchell said:

FL said: **** Side note for Leo: stick around and observe things a while. Eventually you'll find that evolution is as much about religious belief, (a very negative religious belief called materialism), as it is about "science". The fact is that Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. (Irreconcilably, irreparably, and intractably incompatible.) That constant element of tension, generates much interest and ensures that discussion of assorted religious topics will regularly surface within one thread or another. Enjoy! FL

Again, FL (Frequent Liar?) you throw out the canard the "Evolution" and "Christianity" are not compatible Those 2 words don't mean (apparently) what you think they mean. Billions of practicing Christians are able to reconcile the 2

FL said:

Did anyone else notice that, despite his usual bluster, FL never mentioned actually taking the online test or what score he got (not that he couldn’t just lie about his result anyway,?)

15 out of 15, honestly. (I'm sure you're being honest about your reported score too.) Meanwhile, would you boys like one more religious challenge? Of course you would. So step up to the plate, all ye Pandas. Put your darwinian neurons to the REAL test, with a Creationism Quiz!! (I'd wish you luck, except I don't believe in luck. Sorry!) Here ya go: http://www.christianet.com/bible/creationism.htm FL

"Is the Pope..... is not a rhetorical question, Like "Does Bear...etc. it is a device to answer a direct question, without actually saying "Yes", or "No".

Yes! 15/15 for me, although I guessed the last one by eliminating Billy Graham, and then gambling that Q14 and Q15 wouldn't both use Option B as the answer, so I selected Option A, and Bingo. All the rest was easy-peasy, though. It really does show you that Xians have an unfounded persecution complex, when they mistakenly think teachers can't mention religion at all, at all, at all...

I got 15/15 on that test. That was only the most basic information about those religions. How could anyone not get a good score on that?