quote: It is the most extensive and sensitive study of religion ever conducted, linking up with the pioneering surveys conducted by Rodney Stark and Charles Y. Glock in the 1960s. With the Baylor Religion Survey we can dig deeper into American religious attitudes, behaviors and beliefs than previously possible.
Dig in, nerds.
[ September 20, 2006, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm only scratching the surface and it's already fascinating. Thanks, Storm. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I like the way they categorize into what kind of God people worship.
What kind of suprised me is how a majority of all the respondents believed in environmentalism and various other liberalish things. Where the breakdown seemed to really occur was in a belief in 'just war', abortion, and punishment.
It was also interesting to me how Catholics were all over the map, despite the fact that they have a priestly heirarchy. Catholics are weird.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Interesting info. One thing that I've really been looking at lately is data collection and stastical methods. For example, the automotive section in Consumer Reports has seemed like a case study in what not to do.
1,721 respondants hardly seems like a representative sample to me. Additionally, I have to wonder if religious people are more likely to complete such a survey over the phone or return a mailer, thus skewing the results. Do they include info in the actual study about standard deviations, etc?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wow - almost 10% of American Jews believe Jesus was the Son of God? How does that work?
quote:It turns out that there is a clear disconnect between how the media and academics identify American believers and how they identity themselves.
Fascinating. *sends link to Matt*
--- Now I'm just quoting stuff I find interesting.
quote:Approximately one-fifth of the U.S. population have read a book in the Left-Behind series (19.0%) and/or the Purpose-Driven Life by Rick Warren (19.0%). More than a quarter (28.5%) have read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown (see Figure 6).
quote:As church attendance increases, the likelihood of having read The Da Vinci Code significantly decreases (see Figure 9).
quote:Only Evangelical Protestants show a consistency in political opinions. They agree with conservative agenda items and disagree with liberal items. Being Mainline Protestant tells us nothing about someone’s political views on these ten items (see Table 6).
[quote]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: 1,721 respondants hardly seems like a representative sample to me.
It depends on how random your sample is and how broad the trend you're trying to identify is. Here is kind of a fun sample size/confidence interval calculator. They have a decent description of the effect of population size at the bottom of the page. Notably:
quote:Population size is only likely to be a factor when you work with a relatively small and known group of people (e.g., the members of an association).
Provided that the survey's sample was truly random, they are probably claiming a reasonable confidence interval with a 95% confidence level. I'll use the calculator I linked to do a few examples. I'm basing my calculations on an estimated U.S. population of 295,734,134 (CIA factbook).
The 10.8% "unaffiliated" figure has a +/= 1.47% confidence interval at a 95% confidence level.
Of those, 37.1% don't believe in god at all (i.e. atheists and strong agnostics); they would be 4.01% of the total population, +/- 0.93% at 95% confidence. So, anywhere from 3-5% of Americans are probably (they're 95% sure) atheists and strong agnostics.
The 33.6% "Evangelical Protestant" figure has a +/- 2.23% confidence interval at a 95% confidence level.
"Evangelical Protestants" are enumerated as:
quote:Evangelical Protestant: Protestant groups that emphasize the authority of the Bible, salvation through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, personal piety, and the need to share the “Good News” of Jesus Christ with thers (i.e., to evangelize). A long list of theologically conservative denominations define this tradition, such as Anabaptist, Assemblies of God, Bible Church, Brethren, Christian Church, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Church of God, Church of the Nazarene, Free Methodist, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Mennonite, Pentecostal, Presbyterian Church in America, Seventh-day Adventist, and Southern Baptist.
I knew atheists were a tiny minority, but when I look at statistics like this I feel dwarfed by the enormity of people's belief in the divine.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It is weird to realize that people you know on the internet aren't representative of the dorks in the real world. Seems like I know a ton of atheists and agnostics.
edit: i can spell. i can.
[ September 20, 2006, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
quote:Wow - almost 10% of American Jews believe Jesus was the Son of God? How does that work?
Could be Messianic Jews (Ethnically Jewish Christians) ... although I didn't realize there were so many percentage wise. Of course a large number of Jews I know personally are Messianic, but that's probably because I'm a Christian, not a Jew.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: It is weird to realize that people you know on the internet aren't representative of the dorks in the real world. Seems like I know a ton of atheists and agnosticts.
It's also a little different up here in the frozen godless north. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Ethnic Jews/religiously Christian.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Does the "frozen, godless north" include Chicago? The only folks I know that even approach evangelical, I "know" through Hatrack.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:It is weird to realize that people you know on the internet aren't representative of the dorks in the real world. Seems like I know a ton of atheists and agnostics.
Hey.
Some of us on the internet are dorks too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There are a fair number of evangelicals in Chicago, too, Kate. You just need to get away from the ethnic enclaves, which are mostly Catholic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would probably have to get out of the university as well.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Also, I was kidding.
Things aren't actually all that much better up here. Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Better? So this is not good?
I see the data as a description, not a judgement.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wasn't really refering to geography (although there are some areas that are worse than others). More a comment on how insular communities can become. I know a lot of people. I know a lot of deeply religious people. I would have a hard time believing politically conservative evangelical people existed except for the internet - and election results.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*laugh* (That was to Stormy.)
km, that makes sense. I certainly knew they existed because I lived in Dallas and it's the predominant flavor. I don't have the foggiest idea what my coworkers' religious affiliations are right now. Everyone whose affiliations I do know in DC are Mormon.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
"Better" with a winky denoting a statement made in jest.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I admit to using "worse" deliberately and without the winky. I do think (and make no apologies for it) that the current mix of evangelical religion and public policy is bad thing for both religion and society.
I think that has not always been true, but it is now.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's different from a plethora of evangelicals per se being "worse."
Combining evangelicals and their politics is following the lead of the politicized evangelicals. If the objection is to the politics and not to the members of the religion, I think it serves the purpose more to make that disctinction. Not making the distinction is how the trouble arose in the first place.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is true. I guess it was this tidbit that triggered my reaction:
quote: Only Evangelical Protestants show a consistency in political opinions. They agree with conservative agenda items and disagree with liberal items. Being Mainline Protestant tells us nothing about someone’s political views on these ten items (see Table 6).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That says that only evangelicals showed a consistency in opinions - not that only evangelicals had political opinions.
For instance, in some parts of the country income is a much better indicator of probable political affiliation than religion. That doesn't mean it makes sense to lament the existence of people in income brackets.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Evangelicals include Presbyterians? I didn't know that. I wouldn't have thought so.
What are "Free Methodists," by comparison to, um, enslaved ones?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
With respect to your comparisons, kat, religious affiliation with a structured denomination differs from your examples in that it has a mechanism by which ideological pronouncments are made and disseminated to the congregation. An income bracket, for example, [has] no such structure or body (unless you count, say, The Economist).
I do agree with your first sentence, though.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Provided that the survey's sample was truly random, they are probably claiming a reasonable confidence interval with a 95% confidence level.
Hehe, that's always the trick isn't it? If it isn't random, then your p value doesn't mean squat. I have no reason to think that this particular study isn't random (other than just a general skepicism regarding data collection), but I wish I knew more about their methodology in collecting data.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But it is that consistency of opinion that makes them a political power. It is that power and the way it is used that I consider detrimental.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Race can be indicator of consistency as well. Do you think it's a good idea to lament the existence of those races?
There are a great deal of difference between decrying the existence of power and decrying how that power is used. I mean, I'm sure the same kind of remarks were made when Andrew Jackson was elected president. Darn rabble...
Twink: Evangelicals are not a monolith - as a group they may be generally conservative, but it isn't like 95% subscribe to Rule the World Our Way weekly.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I wish I knew more about their methodology in collecting data.
You can read the survey itself at the end of the report (Appendix B, beginning on page 57).
In terms of survey distribution, I have no idea. If you skip ahead to page 69, though, you'll see what demographic information they asked for, so it wouldn't have been hard for them to control against, say, census data to ensure that their sample did indeed reflect the actual distributions of the various demographics in the population of the U.S.
Added:
kat, you've added quite a bit to that post. Would you mind labelling your edits in future conversations with me, at least? I'd really appreciate it.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Twink: Evangelicals are not a monolith - as a group they may be generally conservative, but it isn't like 95% subscribe to Rule the World Our Way weekly.
No, but they do place great weight on a single source of information -- that being the Bible, of course -- and are often guided in their interpretation of that source by other members of their denomination (authorities or otherwise). This is a way in which religious denominations differ dramatically from other divisions such as race or income bracket, which is why I don't think that line of questioning is productive.
[ September 20, 2006, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that political constistency due to race could be bad thing, too, depending on how it is used.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Sorry, I'm not quite being clear. I'm sure the study took every effort to be accurate, and I'm not suggesting they're biased in any way. For example, one of my concerns is along the lines of: who completes an 80 question survey by phone and mail? I personally see an aethist as much less likely to drudge through the whole thing than someone enthused about their church. Another example would be those who support affirmative action and believe in an Authoratarian God. Does the fact that it was cited that around 55% of blacks believe in an Authoratarian God skew the sample significantly?
I know no study can be perfect, and this one appears to do a great job. I just find it enlightening to consider questions such as those.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Evangelicals include Presbyterians? I didn't know that. I wouldn't have thought so.
What are "Free Methodists," by comparison to, um, enslaved ones?
"The Presbyterian Church in America" is a specific denomination name, not a reference to all Presbyterians in the US. They are a more conservative/evangelical breakoff from the Presbyterian Church (USA).
The Free Methodists are likewise a more conservative/evangelical branch of the Methodist tradition, founded in 1860. They wanted to tighten up doctrinal and lifestyle standards. The name comes from their strong abolitionist stance, which was in opposition to some of the southern Methodist churches, who even though the official position of the church was anti-slavery were not real strict about it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: For example, one of my concerns is along the lines of: who completes an 80 question survey by phone and mail? I personally see an aethist as much less likely to drudge through the whole thing than someone enthused about their church.
I don't think that's true. Anecdotally, I would fill the survey out, and I bet King of Men would, too. We atheists, tiny minority that we are, can't risk being underreported!
In addition to filling the survey out if I received it, I might also provide them some feedback as to components that might be worded better in order to capture the nuances of atheism - in which they did not appear to be terribly interested.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Another example would be those who support affirmative action and believe in an Authoratarian God. Does the fact that it was cited that around 55% of blacks believe in an Authoratarian God skew the sample significantly?
I'd call that a question of interpretation, not methodology -- i.e. I wouldn't say that that's an effect that they should be controlling for.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I know no study can be perfect, and this one appears to do a great job. I just find it enlightening to consider questions such as those.
Of course. I'm certainly not advocating that we simply take these numbers as Gospel with no support of any kind. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I think that political constistency due to race could be bad thing, too, depending on how it is used.
That's just power. In democracy/republic, voting bloc consistency is power.
That's saying you think power can be a bad thing, depending on how it is used.
Well, I agree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, I was being more specific. I was saying (not very well) that I think what the evangelicals, specifically, are doing with their political power is bad for both religion and America.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have no objections to your last sentence. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
A question that occurred to me as I was going through the report: given the small percentage of unaffiliated people and the even smaller percentage of atheists or strong agnostics, are allegations of the "secularization" of society a tempest in a teapot? Or, given that, are atheistic worldviews overrepresented in American media?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't have a definite answer. I do have a theory.
From what I can see (roommates trying to get into the business, looking at job requirements here), becoming a professional journalist at some of the national publications requires (1) a branded diploma, and/or (2) experience acquired through internships which pay little to nothing.
Both of those are much more available to adults from wealthy families than from adults from less wealthy families. "Publishing is a great field if your parents can afford to send you."
It seems like the report was saying that the higher the income bracket, the less likely a person was to be actively religious, evangelical, or believe that God had an active interest in daily life. So, I think it's very possible (probable) that the people who can weather the low income years and pay for the education do not have views that are representative of the majority of Americans.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think the allegations are a tactic to mobilize people. Fear works.
I do think that religious political power can and has been used for good. Abolition and civil rights, for example.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I think the allegations are a tactic to mobilize people. Fear works.
I wonder if lamenting the rise of voting consistency among evangelicals can be classified as the same tactic.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, what do we mean by the secularization of soceity? What is an 'atheistic worldview'. Keep in mind, Twinky, that the nature of religious belief has, more and more, included secular outlooks on life. I would guess, for instance, that those who believe in a deist, non-active god in the survey are probably those kind of people who have more 'secular' outlooks. I'm pretty sure that most people these days have a far more logical positivist outlook on life than they did, say, 100 or 200 years a go.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Secularization in society is overly portrayed in popular media. But its not due to some grand conspiracy of anti-religious cabals. It is not a class issue or a regional issue.
Its capitalism.
Popular media, but its very name, seeks to be popular. It wants to be purchased by the majority. Now the majority may religious in outlook, but it is not of one religion. The various religions are quite competitive, even antithetical to each other.
What is often counted as a secular character is one that avoids doing or saying anything religious. Yet that limitation is not to attract other secular viewers, but in order to not drive away opposing religious viewers.
Take Jon from the comic strip Garfield. This is a secular character because he rarely, if ever, mentions God, his church, or his faith. Yet if he were to go to a Synagogue every Saturday, the entire flavor of the cartoon would change to reflect it, and people who's beliefs are anti-Jewish would turn away from it. On the otherhand if he brought his cat to Confession at the local church, people with anti-Catholic views would turn away from the strip.
In other words, while it pays to be religious, being of a specific religion is still costly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you think it might work? Of course I may have to go farther than expressing an opinion on Hatrack...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:being of a specific religion is still costly
Except in careers or geographic regions which are mainly homogenous.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, but then you have by definition limited your demographic already.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Seems like I know a ton of atheists and agnosticts.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)