Poll: Nearly half of Americans uncertain God exists

[advancedatheist]

Well, this could help to explain Sam Harris's and Richard Dawkins's unexpectable publishing success in recent weeks. Americans' growing doubts about god may have made them more open to hearing what atheists have to say:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/31/061031235233.s0l4o4wy.html

Nearly half of Americans uncertain God exists: poll
Oct 31 6:52 PM US/Eastern

Nearly half of Americans are not sure God exists, according to a poll that also found divisions among the public on whether God is male or female or whether God has a human form and has control over events.

The survey conducted by Harris Poll found that 42 percent of US adults are not "absolutely certain" there is a God compared to 34 percent who felt that way when asked the same question three years ago.

[Ginarley]

It's a start :) Still depressingly low though. I wonder what international figures would look like?

[kellyb]

Wow. 10% in three years.
I wonder if there's a reason/reasons that could be identified.

[latent aaaack]

Because of the wording of the poll it's easy to make a lot more out of it than it is. If they asked "do you have any doubt that God exists" the result would have been much lower than 42%. What the respondents might have thought hey were saying is that they didn't have incontravertible proof that God exists. That doesn't necessarily affect what they believe in though.

[KillerBob]

Here's another story that includes a breakdown of the data. It looks like they're attributing much of the jump in numbers to the increased feeling of anonymity in online polls as opposed to answering questions asked by a person over the phone.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/multimedia-online-internet/20061031/NYTU18331102006-1.html

[Freethinker]

It looks like they're attributing much of the jump in numbers to the increased feeling of anonymity in online polls as opposed to answering questions asked by a person over the phone.

People always tend to answer with what they think is the "good" answer when the pollster has personal information about them.

[jay gw]

Religion is losing it's hold as science answers more and more questions correctly. Something that religion has never done.

Also, I think there's a connection to the troubles in the Mid East with regards to extremist religion and terrorism. Americans never realized that these beliefs can have dire consequences for them and everyone else until now.

[advancedatheist]

Religion is losing it's hold as science answers more and more questions correctly. Something that religion has never done.

You wouldn't know that given the dismal state of basic science education in the U.S.

Also, I think there's a connection to the troubles in the Mid East with regards to extremist religion and terrorism. Americans never realized that these beliefs can have dire consequences for them and everyone else until now.

The idea of "framing" can help to get this point across. I like to drop in the fact that Muslim creationists attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001.

[Bob Klase]

Because of the wording of the poll it's easy to make a lot more out of it than it is. If they asked "do you have any doubt that God exists" the result would have been much lower than 42%.

Since the point of the story is the increase over the same survey 3 years ago, you may be making less out of it than it is. They're comparing the results to the results of an *identical survery*- apples to apples. You're throwing in some lemons.

ttp://sev.prnewswire.com/multimedia-online-internet/20061031/NYTU18331102006-1.html
Three years ago, in an identical survey, 79 percent of adults said...

[Rufo]

While I would want to think this survey means more people have started to philosophically consider their beliefs, I'm afraid I can't. I think it is nothing more than a matter of the world getting more secularized in general. Which has advantages and disadvantages, not making much of a difference.

[Tanstaafl]

I think one factor in the US is having a president who consults Jesus on all his major decisions, and then having those decisions turn out so badly.

Some of the people might be smart enough to conclude that maybe he's not getting the claimed guidance from above after all.

[Region Rat]

I think one factor in the US is having a president who consults Jesus on all his major decisions, and then having those decisions turn out so badly.

Some of the people might be smart enough to conclude that maybe he's not getting the claimed guidance from above after all.

I can picture jesus up there going "Hey, Buddha, I keep giving him crap advice, and he keeps coming back. Well, check this out."

I guess if you're comparing results, Ronald Reagan did a little better with astrology. A little. :)

[T'ai Chi]

Religion is losing it's hold as science answers more and more questions correctly.

To answer "correctly" implies you already know the answer beforehand. So why investigate at all then?

And, can religion really "lose its hold" if we are hardwired for it?

[Rufo]

To answer "correctly" implies you already know the answer beforehand. So why investigate at all then?
I think he refers to "correct" answers as those which provide most useful and consistent information. As far as I have seen, science does provide more useful answers than religion in most cases.

And, can religion really "lose its hold" if we are hardwired for it?
Religion can be more or less influent. Perhaps organized religion can lose so much influence that it "loses its hold".

[infornography]

To answer "correctly" implies you already know the answer beforehand. So why investigate at all then?

And, can religion really "lose its hold" if we are hardwired for it?

Hardwired for it? That is a hell of an assumption to make. I find that it felt more natural to reject it than accept it. If I was hardwired for it then the opposite would have been true.

That said I no longer accept or reject it. It actually takes careful consideration and balance to consider objectively and all too easy to reject it out of hand.

[McCulloch]

I'd like to see more than two surveys done over a longer period of time. This is really not enough data to form any meaningful conclusions.

[latent aaaack]

What goes a lot further in exposing the nation's rapidly changing and dissipating belief in traditional religion is the success of the Da Vinci Code. It's hard to wrap one's head around that this is the same country that a few decades ago saw Muslim-style outrage and burnings of Beatles records just over a small misquote from Lennon, when now this country's favorite book is one that disputes the basic truth of the entire religion.

[Dunstan]

And, can religion really "lose its hold" if we are hardwired for it?

We're also hardwired to reproduce, yet sales of birth control seem to be doing quite well.

[slingblade]

And, can religion really "lose its hold" if we are hardwired for it?

On an individual basis, absolutely yes. Even if you are not only "hardwired," but reared in it for years.

Yep, it is absolutely possible to renounce religion and its hold on oneself.
And it feels so very, very good!

[latent aaaack]

On an individual basis, absolutely yes. Even if you are not only "hardwired," but reared in it for years.

Yep, it is absolutely possible to renounce religion and its hold on oneself.
And it feels so very, very good!

Having grown up in a household that didn't attend church or talk about religion I'm amazed at people that grew up in a religious environment but that were still able to shake it off them later despite the unfortunate odds. It must be like snapping out of a brainwashed state to be told something for so long by every authority figure but then realizing its a huge lie or stupidity or both. I can't imagine how insulted I'd feel. Christianity: It takes brainwashing to make you a good person.

[T'ai Chi]

Hardwired for it? That is a hell of an assumption to make.


Where do you believe I assumed it? In fact, I asked a question:


And, can religion really "lose its hold" if we are hardwired for it?

[T'ai Chi]

Yep, it is absolutely possible to renounce religion and its hold on oneself.


Of course it is possible.


And it feels so very, very good!

Argument from emotion? ;)

So it feels good, but does it really make you better? Are there any health studies done on religious vs. non-religious?

[T'ai Chi]

Well, this could help to explain Sam Harris's and Richard Dawkins's unexpectable publishing success in recent weeks.
...


How about the hypothesis that most things with "god" or "faith" in the title tend to sell well?

[Beady]

Wow. 10% in three years.
I wonder if there's a reason/reasons that could be identified.

Probably a screwed-up poll. Regardless, the God/no-God argument has been going on for thousands of years, and even a 100% change over the course of a century would be only a blip on the screen. An 8% change in any size population over three years isn't even worth noticing.

[Roboramma]

Where do you believe I assumed it? In fact, I asked a question:And, can religion really "lose its hold" if we are hardwired for it?

Well, considering that no one said that we were hardwired for religion until you made that post, unless you believe that religion is hardwired, your post is pretty pointless.

[KillerBob]

Having grown up in a household that didn't attend church or talk about religion I'm amazed at people that grew up in a religious environment but that were still able to shake it off them later despite the unfortunate odds. It must be like snapping out of a brainwashed state to be told something for so long by every authority figure but then realizing its a huge lie or stupidity or both. I can't imagine how insulted I'd feel. Christianity: It takes brainwashing to make you a good person.

For a lot of people, myself included, I think “snapping out” of it is probably the wrong description.

For me, it was a very long process. I believe some of the basic doubts were always there, but I still bought in pretty fervently through most of my teenage years. I had countless conversations with myself, going back and forth, slowly reasoning my way out of many of the “truths” I’d spent my whole life learning up to that point. And a lot of that still goes on today.

Even when I reached a point where I knew I was at least agnostic, if not atheist, it still took a long time for me to actually admit it to myself, let alone others.

To this day, I still think about the fact that I’m sleeping in, staying home, or doing other things on Sundays. It’s not a feeling of guilt, but I’m sometimes surprised that I still don’t think of it as just another day of the week and that the thought does cross my mind almost every Sunday.

Looking back, I do sometimes get pretty ticked off at some of the garbage that was fobbed off on me. But then I usually realize that it’s the only way that most of those people knew how to think and that even if you can shake it off, it may take a long time to change your thoughts and perceptions if the religious point of view is the only thing you’ve ever known.

[infornography]

For me it was kind of gradual as well. The big change was when I first realized thre WAS such a thing as an atheist. Yes I lived in the Bible Belt. As far as I could tell there was no such thing as a non-Christian growing up. The first time I met an Atheist everything started to make sense.

[T'ai Chi]

Well, considering that no one said that we were hardwired for religion until you made that post, unless you believe that religion is hardwired, your post is pretty pointless.

Asking questions is "pointless"?

Must be the New Skepticism.

[I less than three logic]

Asking questions is "pointless"?

Must be the New Skepticism.
That is a false generalization. Just because some questions are pointless, that doesn't make them all that way.

[slingblade]

Argument from emotion? ;)

Is it so, when what you are arguing about is pure emotion?

So it feels good, but does it really make you better? Are there any health studies done on religious vs. non-religious?

Let's see....don't care about studies for this. I feel better in body and mind, and that's what matters. I no longer go around flogging myself for every single little error I make, certain that it's why I have nothing, why no one likes me, why no one loves me, why life is so unbearable, and why no matter how hard I try, I just know I'm going to hell.

See, when you worship an invisible being whom you are certain hates your very guts....well...you aren't healthy, that's for sure.

But I am now, or at least much healthier than I once was. Oddly, knowing you've only yourself to blame for most things makes it easier to figure out what you did wrong, and how to keep from doing it again.

Good enough.

[Euromutt]

Argument from emotion?Hardly. When we do do something we're hard-wired to do (such as playing with a baby or having sex), it triggers a rush of endorphins or whatnot, which makes us feel good. Conversely, it rarely (if indeed ever) makes us feel good to do something which runs counter to our hard-wiring.

Thus, Slingblade's statement that jettisoning religion "feel so very, very good" serves as just one indication that we are not hard-wired to be religious. As someone who has never flt the inclination to be religious, I find that very plausible.
So it feels good, but does it really make you better? Are there any health studies done on religious vs. non-religious?What does that have to do with whether or not we're actually hard-wired to be religious? I smell an appeal to consequences (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html).

[Hawkeye]

I wonder how long it'll be until an "openly" atheist or agnostic canidate is elected into office here.
I'm guessing 20 years.

[Beady]

I wonder how long it'll be until an "openly" atheist or agnostic canidate is elected into office here.
I'm guessing 20 years.

You're underestimating the Bible Belt. Religion has been a force in American politics since Roanoke.

[Euromutt]

You're underestimating the Bible Belt. Religion has been a force in American politics since Roanoke.In the case of the presidency, you're absolutely right. But in the case of senators and representatives, the Bible Belt can't affect who voters in any given state in the North-East or on the West Coast elect. I don't think it's impossible that, a few decades from now, an atheist could be elected to the House in one of the more urban districts of Washington state, for example (probably the 1st, 7th or 9th).

[Beady]

Hawkeye said "here," which from his info appears to be the northern part of the Bible Belt. In any case, any secular win would be within a poll's margin of error.

[Euromutt]

Ah, I see. I interpreted "here" to mean the US in general, since I'm pretty certain that elected officials who are openly "non-religious" are extremely thin on the ground anywhere in the country at present. I know way too little about Illinois to make anything of a meaningful statement about it.

[Beady]

I know way too little about Illinois to make anything of a meaningful statement about it.

Well, here's a question you would be geographically qualified to answer: Your own area is outside the Bible Belt, but is known in its own way for, umm, "religious" beliefs. How soon do you see a secular/rationalist governor in the Pacific Northwest?

[T'ai Chi]

I said


So it feels good, but does it really make you better? Are there any health studies done on religious vs. non-religious?


and then


Let's see....don't care about studies for this.


I guess that is one way to run out of the debate. :)


See, when you worship an invisible being whom you are certain hates your very guts....well...you aren't healthy, that's for sure.


That's your strong belief perhaps, but where's your evidence?

[Euromutt]

Well, here's a question you would be geographically qualified to answer: Your own area is outside the Bible Belt, but is known in its own way for, umm, "religious" beliefs.Oh, just because J.Z. Knight is from Tacoma, and set up the Ramtha School of Enlightenment in Yelm (http://www.google.com/maps?q=14507%20Yelm%20Hwy%20SE%2C%20Yelm%2C%20WA%2 098597)... ;)
How soon do you see a secular/rationalist governor in the Pacific Northwest?Not soon. Population-wise, Washington is almost evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, with the former stronger in rural areas (particularly east of the Cascades) and the latter strong in urban areas around Puget sound. How close the call is can be divined from that godawful mess we had with the gubernatorial election result two years ago, which involved multiple recounts. I don't think the Democrats would be willing to risk alienating even a small percentage of voters by fielding an openly non-religious candidate anytime soon, and I don't think the Republicans would go for such a candidate in the first place. Oregon is a similar situation--liberal urban areas narrowly balanced against conservative rural areas--and Idaho... the less said about Idaho the better.

So in a state-wide race, like for governor or federal senator, no, not going to happen in my lifetime, I suspect (I'm 35). I do think it's possible that a position based on a smaller, more homogenous constituency (such as state legislators or federal representatives) might see an "out" atheist elected within the next two or three decades.

[Beady]

I do think it's possible that a position based on a smaller, more homogenous constituency (such as state legislators or federal representatives) might see an "out" atheist elected within the next two or three decades.

Next question: In your opinion, would such an event be the harbinger of a trend, or would it be a one-off abberation?

Personally, I don't see a secular political movement, local or national, anywhere in the foreseeable future. One-off events will almost certainly happen, and it wouldn't surprise me if they already have (for the life of me, I have no idea what the religious leanings are of any of the Vermont Congressional delegation, or the state legislature).

[Foster Zygote]

I guess that is one way to run out of the debate. :)

Have you considered another, more intellectually cowardly approach? One could simply ignore any responses that make points one cannot successfully refute or ask questions one felt ill equipped to answer. This person could then continue to challenge others to justify their own statements, the whole while refusing to reciprocate. One could even use the ignore function of the forum to make the offending posts disappear from one's screen entirely. One could then answer only those questions which didn't point out or threaten to point out one's ignorance and lack of reasoning skill. Then said hypothetical forum participant could simply ask all the questions and issue all the challenges while smugly declaring victory. But only in a narrow, artificially reduced debate community within his/her own mind.

Steven

[Euromutt]

No, I wouldn't expect to see it become a trend, and I'm not sure I'm particularly fussed. For it to become a trend, religious faith--or rather, lack thereof--needs to remain an issue in candidate selection, and I'd just as soon, if not sooner, see religious faith (or lack thereof) cease to be an issue all together, and non-religious candidates be judged on their merits, rather than be rejected because they won't pay lip service to some deity.

[Euromutt]

I guess that is one way to run out of the debate. :)You know, for somebody who keeps repeating that assertion that "we're hard-wired to believe" but has never produced one shred of evidence for it, and studiously ignores all evidence to the contrary, that is some [rule 8]ing chutzpah.

[Glen.Nogami]

This, I think, would be an example of the power of how questions are worded. In TIME, recently, there was a survey indicating that about 90% of those surveyed believed in "some sort of god", as opposed to 42 percent who are not "absolutely certain" that a god exists. Even with margins of error, there is some overlap.

Conclusion:
Polls suck. :D