--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > From an article in the Wall Street Journal: > > > > > > ...From Hollywood to the academy, nonbelievers are convinced > > > that a decline in traditional religious belief would lead to > > > a smarter, more scientifically literate and even more > > > civilized populace. > > > > > > The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging > > > religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, > > > enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new > > > levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take > > > on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us. > > > > > > "What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study > > > released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that > > > traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in > > > everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the > > > usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious > > > and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, > > > far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more > > > likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than > > > evangelical Christians. > > > > > > Read more: > > > > > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html? > > > mod=googlenews_wsj > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/53xr95 > > > > Hmmm. sounds like someone with an agenda. Because, the less > > liberal sects believe in a strict interpretation of the bible, > > with such thigns as transubstantiation, miracles, raising from > > the dead, healing by laying on hands, parting of the Red Sea, > > the End of Days, etc. > > I suggest you read the article, if not the study > itself (it was performed by Gallup). >
At the request of a religious college, which differentiated between beliefs in traditional christian beliefs and not-so-traditional beliefs as though this meant that they were different in some fundamental sense. ALl the study really showed is that people who are members of a conservative group tend to believe only in the beliefs of that conservative group while members of more liberal gorups tend to be more ecclective in their belief systems. The questionaire also found that not only did most people believe in Angels, but that they had been *helped* those angels and that they had been spoken to by God. How is this any different than believing in palmreading or speaking to the dead via a medium, save that the church they belong to only recognizes chruch-snacitoned supernatural phenomena as real? > > Perhaps the study found that lerberal religious people are more > > likely to *indulge* in their beliefs but to suggest that > > orthodox Christians don't believe in suchthigns is, well, > > deceptive, at best. > > They didn't "suggest," they have data to prove it. > > But the key is the phrase "such things." What > evangelicals believe in is the traditional Christian > stuff (see above). The point is that atheists and the > "irreligious," rather than being all scientifically > minded, believe more in New Age-type stuff. > That is, non-Conservative Christian stuff. > Evangelicals, basically, are limited to traditional > Christian beliefs as a matter of dogma, whereas the > "irreligious" can believe in a whole range of nutty > stuff, with no limitations; their beliefs aren't > prescribed by or constrained by Scripture as the > evangelicals' beliefs are. > Well, gee, and this means what, exactly? That conservative people tend to accept a much more narrow set of beliefs as valid than liberals? BTW, I can see why you didn't want me to read the original study, but merely the article, by someone who is herself a published writer whose religion and writings favor the study's findings. http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=52815 > > Andf of course, I recall Skip Alexander's PhD thesis which found > > that prison inmates who converted to the most strict religious > > sects became worse on every personality measure. > > Speaking of folks with an agenda, you mean? > yes indeedy. Speaking of someone with a rather obvious agenda... Judy... Lawson
