My thoughts? Well, the first one that comes to mind is the clear adage
that you can tell the result of a study by who funds it. In this case,
a Theological University, Baylor. (The article is not the study
itself.)

I've thought long and hard about going through the article line by
line and pointing out how it abuses clarity of thought and in many
cases does so in very subtle ways. Perhaps one day.

For now, here is the 2005 survey.
http://www.isreligion.org/research/surveysofreligion/isr_wave12005_survey.pdf

and here is the late 2007 survey upon which the current news stories
and articles are discussing.

http://www.isreligion.org/research/surveysofreligion/isr_wave22007_survey.pdf

Simple example of questions include question 12:

By your best guess, how would your current place of
worship feel about each of the following? (Please mark
only one box for each item a-i.)
Forbids
��
Strongly
discourages
��
Somewhat
discourages
��
Encourages
��
Isn't
concerned
��
Don't
know
��
a.
Pornography 
.................................................................................
b.
Gambling 
.......................................................................................
c. Wearing revealing
clothing .........................................................
d. Premarital
sex 
...............................................................................
e. Living together before
marriage ................................................
f. Use of
contraception 
....................................................................
g.
Abortion 
........................................................................................
h. Homosexual
behavior .................................................................
i. Displays of
wealth........................................................................

Of course, anything can be 'proven' when it is what is being looked
for.

About their 2005 study, the University says on their website the
following:

"Utilizing a mixed-mode sampling design (telephone and self-
administered mailed surveys), the Baylor Religion Survey is a
nationally representative survey of 1,721 respondents and is merely
the first wave of a rich and rewarding new era of religious survey
research. Additional waves of the Baylor Religion Survey, with
rotating topical modules, will take place every other year."

Elsewhere on their site is this:

"WASHINGTON, D.C. - American religion is remarkably stable and quite
surprising in its diverse beliefs, practices and realities, according
to the latest findings from the Baylor Religion Survey, one of the
most extensive surveys ever conducted on American religious
attitudes."

A cursory analysis shows that in this first paragraph of their own
press release put out by their marketing department,  religion that is
'remarkably stable' also is diverse in beliefs, practices and
realities. A truly remarkable conclusion!

OK, enough about what caused Mollie to write her article. Within her
article, her personal bias and belief is clear to those who wish to
look. ('...have eyes to see...')

Overall, to attempt to equate dogma and blind belief with being more
rational than exploring all areas of thought is itself so blind and
conservative as to negate any such study.


On Oct 4, 10:19 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think of this recent column in the Wall Street Journal by
> Mollie Ziegler Hemingway?  She argues that traditional religious
> beliefs protect people against pseudoscience and superstition, and
> that wide-spread atheism will cause society to become even more
> irrational.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html?mod=googlenew...
>
> Aaron
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Memphis Freethought Alliance" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to