Topic: 54% of UK Christians believe in God

[Hanes]

and other interesting results in a survey commissioned by the RDF.  It asks questions about religion to people who said they were Christian on the UK's 2011 survey.

Full survey results (opens in pdf)
RDF release
PZ's post on it (where it was brought to my attention)

The thread title comes from Q19 on pg 5.  When asked, "which of the following statements best describe your personal view of god?"  37% responded "I believe in God and I believe that Christianity is just one way of knowing him" and 17% responded "... is the only true way of knowing him."  The other 46% thinks of god metaphorically or "whatever caused the universe" or "I don't believe in God" (6%).

But then Q22 shows 65% believe the Bible is either the best or a perfect guide to morality.  Wtf?  That's at least 11% of people that think "god is the laws of nature" or other non-theistic thoughts that still think a bronze-age horror story is the best we've got.  What the heck?

51% of respondents haven't read the bible in the last three years or never (Q20).  Oh, that the heck.

Anyways, clearly Kwisatz is correct, at least with respect to the UK.

[Eternally Learning]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't KH say the "vast majority" of Christians don't believe in a literal god?  He didn't say the "vast majority of UK Christians," he said "Christians."  At any rate, this isn't the vast majority at all.  Then you look at some of the other questions about other supernatural things and it becomes clear that it's not quite as straight-forward as you're thinking:



71% believe in some sort of resurrection of Jesus with a supernatural element (i.e. not a metaphor for something non-supernatural).  That's not quite the same as what I understand KH's beliefs to be where he espouses no supernatural beliefs at all.  Moreover, it suggests a somewhat confused view on the respondents' own views as some of them claim not to believe in God, but believe in his son's resurrection.




With this one, it's a similar matter; more than the 54% who believe in God, believe in Heaven.  Another conflict.




Now we start getting into the real matter; now we see how the religion actually influences these people's lives and it doesn't appear to be much.  I wonder how KH would answer this question.




Even more to the point is how many Christians don't consider themselves religious at all which raises the question of what exactly being a Christian means to them.  Which brings us to this:



Only 31-36% actually attempt to follow the religion at all, and the rest are clearly either confused or haven't even really thought about it.  KH is not in that group at all; he's clearly thought about his religion a great deal and has very well-defined views on it.  If he wants to call himself a Christian, I won't argue with him as it's his choice to define himself as he will.  What I will argue is that the numbers of people in this survey who call themselves Christian are not all the same as him in nature, and seem to be more along the lines of basically mindlessly following something they don't really understand.

[ting-bu-dong]

Self-reporting on religion is notoriously unreliable, and you frequently get nonsensical answers. If there's anything to get from data like this it's that the assertion that literal belief in the doctrines of Christianity and other religions is a fringe phenomenon is just as false as saying practice of the religion without belief is fringe. Both are significant groups which use the same vocabulary to describe themselves and often coexist in the same organisations, which is why labels such as 'Christian' are too broad to be useful. Similarly, accusing atheists of strawmanning Christians when we criticise the concept of faith and the content of the doctrines is also in error.

[klintistvud]

Lots of cognitive dissonance: 71% believe that Jesus came back to life either physically or spiritually after being dead.

Q22 shows 65% believe the Bible is either the best or a perfect guide to morality.

And at the same time only 10% look to "religious teachings and beliefs" for moral guidance (Q49).

[Eternally Learning]

I just want to be clear here; I'm not saying KH doesn't legitimately call himself a Christian, I'm not even saying his world-view and lifestyle choice is not valid or reasonable.  The only thing I object to from him is his unsupported assertions that his world-view and lifestyle choice are things held by the vast majority of Christians in the world.  I'm not saying he's wrong mind you, I'm saying that's not my experience and he's not given me anything to prompt me to look past my experience and accept his assertion.  This survey also does nothing to sway me either for the reasons I listed above.

It's also worth noting that I will accept that there are probably more people than I realize who feel like KH does about Christianity; I just don't see them being the vast majority, and being repeatedly told that I'm "an anti-religious fucktard" and that I simply need to "open my eyes" and see the truth is insulting and makes me care very little about actually researching this on my own.  At this point it's his cross to bear and he's the one upset about it, not me.  If it's so obvious to him, it shouldn't be very hard to pull something together to sway my views on it.

[Shibboleth]

I am Christian and I do not believe that the Bible is the best or perfect guide to morality.

[Eternally Learning]

I am Christian and I do not believe that the Bible is the best or perfect guide to morality.

Yup, that's why I didn't cite that question as a conflict.

[stonesean]

I will say I know people who self identify as Christian who have never set foot in a church, nor read a single page of the bible.

They look at me confused when I say: "How does that make you a Christian?"

That's a big stretch from saying "Most Christians are Atheists".......which is what I understand KW's claim to be....

[Shibboleth]

And at the same time only 10% look to "religious teachings and beliefs" for moral guidance (Q49).

Most people agree that eating a ton of fatty food isn't good for you. That doesn't mean that they abide by those rules.

I know that I would be far more healthy if I exercised more and read nutrition magazines but I do not.

[Eternally Learning]

I will say I know people who self identify as Christian who have never set foot in a church, nor read a single page of the bible.

They look at me confused when I say: "How does that make you a Christian?"

That's a big stretch from saying "Most Christians are Atheists".......which is what I understand KW's claim to be....

Yes.  There's a big difference between being basically an atheist and calling yourself a Christian out of ignorance or apathy, and being like KH where you are knowledgeable about the religion and purposefully follow it in your own fashion while still being purposefully an atheist.  The latter does not get to claim the former as kindred spirits IMO.

[DeepGlue]

At any rate, most of the people we're talking about are just not thinking. I don't understand how people can go through life like that.

[Neon Genesis]

Lots of cognitive dissonance: 71% believe that Jesus came back to life either physically or spiritually after being dead.

The problem is the word "spiritually" isn't very clearly defined in the survey question.  Does the survey mean like Jesus came back as a ghost or do they mean like the apostles halunnicated or had some sort of dream/vision?  If it's the former, then that would imply a supernatueral belief of some sort.  If it's the latter, you don't neccessarily need to believe in the supernatural to think that maybe the apostles had a dream where they saw Jesus and that a later myth of him being physically raised from the dead sprung out of that dream.  Kind of like an ancient version of Chinese Whisperers.  But the word "spiritually" is too vaguely defined in this question to tell us anything about what they actually believe happened.

[Shibboleth]

At any rate, most of the people we're talking about are just not thinking. I don't understand how people can go through life like that.

It isn't as hot button of item for them as it is for you. My father was appalled that people didn't know how to change their own oil or fix a broken toaster.

I enjoy history and I work with a very intelligent person that couldn't care less about history. He could tell you all kinds of information about the things that interest him but if I were to ask him when the US Civil war took place he wouldn't be able to give an answer. To me that is bizarre.

[Eternally Learning]

I think it's a huge stretch to read "Jesus came back to life spiritually instead of physically" as "The apostles had a shared dream or hallucination."  If that was the belief, why would you phrase it as a spiritual resurrection unless you were trying to be confusing?  Here's one take on the phrase's meaning:

Spiritual Resurrection Theory

Some modern Christians, and even a few theologians, believe in a spiritual (rather than bodily) resurrection of Jesus. According to this view, his human body either vanished or was removed by God, and he reappeared in his eternal spiritual form.

Some scholars think that this was also the original belief of the earliest Christians, and that the idea of a bodily resurrection didn't appear until later. Possible evidence for this can be found in some of the earliest writings, including the letters of Paul and the Gospel of Thomas. Surviving writings of the gnostics indicate that this group of early Christians may have believed in a spiritual resurrection. In fact the evidence suggests that different groups of early Christians disputed this very matter, and some scholars suspect that several passages in the gospels may have been invented to try to refute the idea that Jesus arose in spiritual form. The best-known example is John 20:24-29, in which Jesus invites the disciple Thomas to touch the wounds made by the nails and the spear thrust. Some scholars doubt that this actually happened, especially since none of the other gospels say anything at all about nails or a spear thrust.

The belief that Jesus returned in a spiritual form is also consistent with the various gospel stories in which he suddenly appears and disappears, or passes through walls, and with the stories in which his followers don't initially recognize him, or are told not to touch him. Many scholars think that these stories are older than the stories in which he invites the disciples to touch him.

Note that the Spiritual Resurrection Theory is fundamentally different from the Vision Theory. In one case there is an actual spiritual resurrection, whereas in the other case there are only hallucinations.

Another one referencing the Jehovah's Witness' take on it:

One of the distinctive doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses is their belief that Jesus, after His death and burial, was not raised to life again in His body, but rather as a spirit creature (the archangel Michael). They say that Jesus' fleshly body was disposed of by Jehovah God forever. How do Jehovah's Witnesses arrive at this conclusion? What is the truly biblical view of the resurrection of Jesus Christ? This article will seek to answer such questions as these.

The following quotes are typical of the Watchtower position on the resurrection of Christ:

    "...many persons believe that Christ took his fleshly body to heaven. They point to the fact that when Christ was raised from the dead, his fleshly body was no longer in the tomb (Mark 16:5-7). Also, after his death Jesus appeared to his disciples in a fleshly body to show them that he was alive. Once He even had the apostle Thomas put his hand into the hole in His side so that Thomas would believe that He had actually been resurrected (John 20:24-27) Does this not prove that Christ was raised alive in the same body in which he was put to death? No it does not." (You Can Live Forever on Paradise Earth, pp. 143-144).

    "...the man Jesus is dead, forever dead..." (The Atonement Between God and Man, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 5, 1899, p. 454).

    "...the bodies in which Jesus manifested himself to the disciples after his return to life were not the body in which he was nailed to the tree." (The Kingdom is at Hand, 1944, p. 259).

Another take against the concept of a spiritual resurrection:

The resurrection of Jesus is a fundamental and essential doctrine of Christianity.  The resurrection of Jesus is so important that without it Christianity is false.  Paul said in 1 Cor. 15:14, "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."  Three verses later, in verse 17, he again says, "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."  Though there are many subjects with which Christians may disagree and still be considered Christian, this is not one of them.  To deny the resurrection of Jesus is to deny the heart of Christianity itself.

However, the problem in the resurrection isn't so much in agreeing that Jesus rose, but in how He rose.  Unfortunately, cults attack the resurrection of Christ and reinterpret it in different ways, thereby denying His physical resurrection.  We must ask if Jesus rose from the dead in the very same body He died in or did He rise in a spirit body that was not flesh and bones?  The answer to this question is vital.  It separates true Christians from false systems.  Therefore, here is the correct doctrine of Christ's resurrection; I consider it so important, that it must be set off by itself as a statement of truth:

It seems there is a pretty good idea among Christians as to what "spiritual resurrection" means.

[Vincegamer]

and of course "spiritually" could also mean that despite Jesus' death, his followers carried on in his tradition and made his sect into the vast, world-spanning institution it became.

I hate the word "spiritual".

Anyways, clearly Kwisatz is correct, at least with respect to the UK.

How you can suggest that "the vast majority of Christians don't believe in a god" is supported by a study of UK Christians in - which only 6% said they don't believe in a god and 56% expressed a clear belief in a supernatural deity - is frankly beyond my ability to understand.