Gallup Poll for 2022

[TheJefe817]

There's a news story out there - dated today on the version I reached on the Gallup website - updating their periodic poll on belief in god in the US (using small g since they don't really define which god).  I won't link it since I'm new and I think that's against the rules, but I wanted to throw it out there and make a couple of observations.

It shows 81% with a belief in "god" - generically defined.  I was surprised it was that high, but it's down from 87% in 2017 and 92% in 2011.  That's a pretty big and statistically significant drop in that short a time - consistent with what Shermer/Skeptic has put out there over time regarding the "nones".  I'm thinking wider availability of information at a keystroke is key to this?

None of the lower-percentage categories are all that surprising (to me at least) - younger, single, childless, democrat, liberal, college graduate, etc.  The age one was the most stark to me - 68% for ages 18-29, 88% for 50-64 - but those were down from 78% and 93% in 2013-2017.  The church isn't "getting 'em young" quite as effectively anymore.

One thing that struck me the most - although specifically "do not believe in god" was 17% total, an additional 11% believe in a God that neither hears nor answers prayers. and another 28% in a God that hears but does not answer.  I mean, I fall in the 17%, but used to fall in the 42% of "hears and answers".  These other two intermediate categories are somewhat mysterious to me - I guess it's just my background, but what would be the point of those "gods"?  I mean, taken this way, 56% of those surveyed believe there is no form of divine intervention.

[Belacqua]

There's a news story out there - dated today on the version I reached on the Gallup website - updating their periodic poll on belief in god in the US (using small g since they don't really define which god).  I won't link it since I'm new and I think that's against the rules, but I wanted to throw it out there and make a couple of observations.

It shows 81% with a belief in "god" - generically defined.  I was surprised it was that high, but it's down from 87% in 2017 and 92% in 2011.  That's a pretty big and statistically significant drop in that short a time - consistent with what Shermer/Skeptic has put out there over time regarding the "nones".  I'm thinking wider availability of information at a keystroke is key to this?

None of the lower-percentage categories are all that surprising (to me at least) - younger, single, childless, democrat, liberal, college graduate, etc.  The age one was the most stark to me - 68% for ages 18-29, 88% for 50-64 - but those were down from 78% and 93% in 2013-2017.  The church isn't "getting 'em young" quite as effectively anymore.

One thing that struck me the most - although specifically "do not believe in god" was 17% total, an additional 11% believe in a God that neither hears nor answers prayers. and another 28% in a God that hears but does not answer.  I mean, I fall in the 17%, but used to fall in the 42% of "hears and answers".  These other two intermediate categories are somewhat mysterious to me - I guess it's just my background, but what would be the point of those "gods"?  I mean, taken this way, 56% of those surveyed believe there is no form of divine intervention.

Is this the one?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393737/beli...w-low.aspx

[TheJefe817]

Is this the one?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393737/beli...w-low.aspx

Yup - thank you, senior member, for filling that gap for the newbie!

[Belacqua]

One thing that struck me the most - although specifically "do not believe in god" was 17% total, an additional 11% believe in a God that neither hears nor answers prayers. and another 28% in a God that hears but does not answer.  I mean, I fall in the 17%, but used to fall in the 42% of "hears and answers".  These other two intermediate categories are somewhat mysterious to me - I guess it's just my background, but what would be the point of those "gods"?  I mean, taken this way, 56% of those surveyed believe there is no form of divine intervention.

You take an interesting approach here when you ask "what would be the point of" a god which neither heard nor responded to our requests. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to feel that people believe in something because they find it desirable or useful. That is, they will believe in a god if they think a god would help them out, but won't bother to believe if god isn't useful to them.

No doubt there's a lot of variation even within that 11%, but if they conceive of god based not on wishful thinking but on some other reason, they might come to the conclusion that such a thing is believable. For example, if they think of god as some sort of organizing principle, or ground of being, or metaphysical necessity, or Form of the Good. Personally, the arguments for this god are the only ones that make sense to me, though I remain unconvinced either way. 

A god who heard your secret thoughts and granted wishes is more like a magic friend -- the thing that Internet atheists rail against. But this is neither the God that Kierkegaard believed in, nor the one that Nietzsche spent his time debunking. (Kierkegaard thought that prayer was a form of self-help, getting one's mind more in line with the goodness that God wills. But he didn't think that God reached down to intervene. Nietzsche thought of God as something like an order underlying the universe, and thought that real atheism would demand belief that, at bottom, the universe is chaos.)

[TheJefe817]

You take an interesting approach here when you ask "what would be the point of" a god which neither heard nor responded to our requests. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to feel that people believe in something because they find it desirable or useful. That is, they will believe in a god if they think a god would help them out, but won't bother to believe if god isn't useful to them.

No doubt there's a lot of variation even within that 11%, but if they conceive of god based not on wishful thinking but on some other reason, they might come to the conclusion that such a thing is believable. For example, if they think of god as some sort of organizing principle, or ground of being, or metaphysical necessity, or Form of the Good. Personally, the arguments for this god are the only ones that make sense to me, though I remain unconvinced either way. 

A god who heard your secret thoughts and granted wishes is more like a magic friend -- the thing that Internet atheists rail against. But this is neither the God that Kierkegaard believed in, nor the one that Nietzsche spent his time debunking. (Kierkegaard thought that prayer was a form of self-help, getting one's mind more in line with the goodness that God wills. But he didn't think that God reached down to intervene. Nietzsche thought of God as something like an order underlying the universe, and thought that real atheism would demand belief that, at bottom, the universe is chaos.)

Fair points.  If I'm honest, I would say I agree with you in how I feel about it - I would say most people believe in a god because they think there is a benefit of some sort - reward or avoidance of punishment.  That's almost certainly what kept me personally there for so long.  I know the poll is not that deep into reasoning and motivation, and I think it would be interesting to know.  My evidence on this is anecdotal, but of the religious folk I know - and I know a lot of them - this is to some extent observably true.  Theirs is more of the magic friend/Santa Claus in the sky theology and they probably have never heard of Kierkegaard, much less have any understanding of his views.  Simple, again anecdotal, evidence - hundreds of theist facebook friends rallying to pray for whatever mass shooting happened that day - expecting the prayers to have a result of any sort.

[Belacqua]

Fair points.  If I'm honest, I would say I agree with you in how I feel about it - I would say most people believe in a god because they think there is a benefit of some sort - reward or avoidance of punishment.  That's almost certainly what kept me personally there for so long.  I know the poll is not that deep into reasoning and motivation, and I think it would be interesting to know.  My evidence on this is anecdotal, but of the religious folk I know - and I know a lot of them - this is to some extent observably true.  Theirs is more of the magic friend/Santa Claus in the sky theology and they probably have never heard of Kierkegaard, much less have any understanding of his views.  Simple, again anecdotal, evidence - hundreds of theist facebook friends rallying to pray for whatever mass shooting happened that day - expecting the prayers to have a result of any sort.

Yes, it's always disappointing to see how many Christians settle for this magic friend version. And of course the magic friend always agrees with them on all the current political trends, as well. 

Christianity is capable of being so much better. There are, within its traditions, paths which could challenge the believers far more, and make the world better for the rest of us. For example, mystical Christians from Teresa of Avila to William Blake say that Jesus only exists and acts in the world through the actions of people. Someone who agreed with this wouldn't simply pray after a school shooting -- they would feel the duty to act. 

I looked at the poll data and I didn't see a breakdown of education levels for those who believe in a non-prayer-answering god. That would be interesting to see -- whether these are people who get their beliefs from Plato or Spinoza or some other respectable thinker who would also fall in the 11%.

Unlike many people, I tend not to blame Christianity itself for the naivety of its majority. I mean, they could do better, but it may not be fair to demand that in society as it is. To me, the issue is part of a larger trend of dumbing-down, of distraction and consumerism. A smarter society would have smarter Christians.

[TheJefe817]

Yes, it's always disappointing to see how many Christians settle for this magic friend version. And of course the magic friend always agrees with them on all the current political trends, as well. 

Christianity is capable of being so much better. There are, within its traditions, paths which could challenge the believers far more, and make the world better for the rest of us. For example, mystical Christians from Teresa of Avila to William Blake say that Jesus only exists and acts in the world through the actions of people. Someone who agreed with this wouldn't simply pray after a school shooting -- they would feel the duty to act. 

I looked at the poll data and I didn't see a breakdown of education levels for those who believe in a non-prayer-answering god. That would be interesting to see -- whether these are people who get their beliefs from Plato or Spinoza or some other respectable thinker who would also fall in the 11%.

Unlike many people, I tend not to blame Christianity itself for the naivety of its majority. I mean, they could do better, but it may not be fair to demand that in society as it is. To me, the issue is part of a larger trend of dumbing-down, of distraction and consumerism. A smarter society would have smarter Christians.

As to the education level, the only breakdown I see on that is not specific to the 11% - just the "college" vs. "non-college" for belief overall.  Belief leans to the non-college educated, but not as strongly as some of the other categorizations.  Not much to take from that one, and no further breakdown, unfortunately.

On the naivety, I agree with what you say as a big factor.  Although, the direction of the overall poll does encourage me that, as I alluded to originally, the widespread availability of information and alternate ideas may be causing more people to think critically.

However, I also think there's plenty of blame to go around.  I would also not say I blame "Christianity itself", in that this would be hard to pinpoint - who or what exactly is that?  From a historical standpoint, the Catholic church certainly, and other institutions as well, but as a blanket over all of it, that's tough.  

In my own situation, I bear much of the blame in that I was not inquisitive or intellectually honest enough.  Also, though, I harbor a lot of resentment towards clergy and other people whose life's work this entails.   I have interacted over the years with many I now hold negative thoughts about for willful obfuscation of information that would have challenged my assumptions.  I think this is fair - these are people with a fiduciary trust over "souls", and releasing only the bits of information - all of which they are well aware of if they went to and paid attention in any reputable seminary - is akin to a stockbroker only highlighting the positive aspects of a company investment and intentionally not mentioning its pending bankruptcy.  I'm not saying they need to preach all aspects of every issue from the pulpit every Sunday, but I have had innumerable one-on-one meetings with many, many pastors and theologians over the years over both trivial and weighty issues.  I've had them to dinner at my house with my family.  I've spoken to them on the phone, written letters and emails, etc, etc, etc.  How is it then, that after *decades* in the church, I only now am really learning about the Johannine comma and other disputed scripture passages, for instance?  (One example among many - textual, theological, etc).

[Jehanne]

Two generations ago atheism was not even detectable in Gallup's polls. At the end of the Late Middle Ages (1500 AD), atheism was virtually nonexistent (if not completely nonexistent) and was publicly defended (drumroll) by no one whatsoever.

[HappySkeptic]

How is it then, that after *decades* in the church, I only now am really learning about the Johannine comma and other disputed scripture passages, for instance?  (One example among many - textual, theological, etc).

Wow, I thought I was fairly well versed in theology, but I didn't even know about this.  Considering that these inserted phrases are the most explicit biblical basis for the Trinity (not the only one, but probably the most clear), it seems important that they didn't exist before the 3rd century!

[Jehanne]

How is it then, that after *decades* in the church, I only now am really learning about the Johannine comma and other disputed scripture passages, for instance?  (One example among many - textual, theological, etc).

Wow, I thought I was fairly well versed in theology, but I didn't even know about this.  Considering that these inserted phrases are the most explicit biblical basis for the Trinity (not the only one, but probably the most clear), it seems important that they didn't exist before the 3rd century!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma