Religion
Related: About this forumSurveying religious conviction is meaningless
The Irish Times - Friday, August 10, 2012
JOHN WATERS
DESPITE THEIR trumpeting by a media determined to jump on anything to “prove” its God-is- dead, long-live-the-media thesis, the findings of this week’s so-called religiosity index poll are all but entirely devoid of meaning.
A Red C press release summarising the results of the WIN-Gallup “global index of religions and atheism” announced on Wednesday that Ireland now rates as one of the world’s “least religious countries”, with fewer than half of us describing ourselves as “religious”.
But what does this mean? The main question of the poll, asked of 51,927 people in 57 countries, was: “Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious person, or a convinced atheist?”
The only vaguely reliable element of these findings as far as Ireland is concerned is that referring to “convinced atheists”, a category that has shown a three-point rise, from 10 per cent to 13 per cent, since the last such poll in 2005. Even this finding is ambiguous, since atheism Irish-style clearly embraces a wide spectrum of people, from existentialists to lazy-minded anti-Catholic bigots.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0810/1224321890481.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I feel your pain.
perhaps the end times will come soon and then it will all be moot.
rug
(82,333 posts)I feel your pain.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The end is near, repent.
rug
(82,333 posts)And what figment of your imagination are you mimicking?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)but seriously, when the end times come does a 3 week aborted fetus get resurrected as a glob of cells? I don't understand that part and wondered if you could explain it, being so smart and everything.
rug
(82,333 posts)We're done.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)That's one of the lamest attempts to shore up the reputation of religion I've ever seen. Redefine it, stick in a 'science' to try to get a bit of reflected credibility, and hope (to God, in this guy's case) that non of your readers see through your bullshit.
This is not a semantic objection. It is obvious that the WIN-Gallup/Red C poll was conducted and published with a certain ideological agenda in mind. This is clear from the published details but would most likely have been clear also to many of the people surveyed, as they answered the questions.
OED definition of 'religiosity':
a. Religiousness; religious feeling or belief.
b. depreciative. Affected or excessive religiousness.
†2. = religion n. 1. Obs.
†3. In pl. Religious services. Obs. rare—1.
So he's wrong about that, too. They weren't using the word 'religiosity' in their survey, either, so the possible 'excessive' meaning doesn't matter - they clearly mean "religious feeling".
The 'point' of the article seems to be "opinion polls are unreliable, because people are influenced by what the media says, when they ought to be influenced by what the Pope says - then you'd know what people really think - it'd be Catholic dogma".
rug
(82,333 posts)Here's the poll:
http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf
How would you answer this?
not, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious
persons or a convinced atheist?
How many "convinced atheists" attend a place of worship in the first place?
And there are at least three common definitions of "religious":
1
: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2
: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3
a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious
Which definition is being answered?
This is less about "Catholic dogma" than it is about unwarranted leaps to a desired place. Facts matter.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)1: Convinced Atheist
2: Who cares? Your question is irrelevant. The qualifying clause is designed to stop people answering the "religious or not" choice based on their attendance of a place of worship.
3: That would be up to the person answering. But we see (a) that the writer's "science of everything" bollocks is a complete load of tosh, and (b) that he didn't try to say "religious" has more than one definition. Instead, he invented his own, spouted BS for several paragraphs, and made himself look a complete idiot, with some "unwarranted leaps to a desired place". You don't seem to be able to find a point to the article either. It's a wonder the Irish Times published such sub-standard work, when both the religious and non-religious can't explain the point of it.
rug
(82,333 posts)As to 2, that qualifier is what makes the question spongy.
As to 1, good for you.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)You're a laff riot, rug. Sadly, the author of the piece is a bitter religionist with a loose grip on reality.
rug
(82,333 posts)mr blur
(7,753 posts)Not all the inconvenient ones you choose to ignore, anyway.
rug
(82,333 posts)Count yourself blessed.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The rise of the "nones". What is a person who says they are not *religious* but not a convinced atheist? I guess that would make them agnostic or a believer without religious affiliation.
I agree that the question is badly worded. The definition of being *religious* can mean so many different things to different people.
