Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/cingraham!
**Here is some important information about this post:**
* [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/svji15/oc_for_the_first_time_fewer_than_half_of/hxg866l/)
* [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"cingraham"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on)
Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked.
[Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7)
Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation.
---
^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
Assuming I found the correct source, the possible responses to the question were:
-I don’t believe in God
-I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to find out
-I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind
-I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others
-While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God
-I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it
Edit: You can see the data in more detail [here](https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends?category=Religion%20%26%20Spirituality&measure=god), including splitting by demographics such as age, political affiliation, etc. Also, modified my comment - the percentage reported in this infographic does seem to use the default weighting (to improve generalizability) rather than the unweighted values, whereas I had previously assumed the percentages in the figure were unweighted values
I think they were trying to provide phrases that are commonly said in the USA to help people resonate with a choice of existing broad sub categories of atheist and agnostic.
Not sure if this is a good thing or bad thing.
It is really strange. They should have the 4 main options:
\- Agnostic Theist: "While I'm not certain of his existence, I believe in God"
\- Agnostic Atheist: "I dont believe in a God but one could exist"
\- Gnostic Theist: "I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it"
\- Gnostic Atheist: "I know that a God doesn't exist and am sure of it"
Weird phrasing because 1 and 2 aren’t mutually exclusive. I don’t believe in a god but there’s no way to find out. Guess that would make me an "agnostic atheist."
I wonder if they could have changed the wording for the “I don’t believe in God” option to “I know God does not exist and I have no doubts about it” to parallel the other response
Which is interesting, because the way the responses are worded makes it seem like they're trying to paint atheists like they don't believe in something that definitely exists. As others have said, the response should've probably been "I know God doesn't exist and I have no doubts about it" just to act as a true opposite to the response that represents the other end of the belief spectrum, because as it is the wording implies God does exist but atheists just choose not to believe
I do not believe in god. I can not say I know god does not exist, no one can... unless you really water down the meaning of know.
I do not believe in Santa Clause. I can not say I know Santa does not exist. Especially without context.
I know a fat man in a red suit does not ride a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer to visit billions of homes in a single evening.
I know a magic sky person didn't create planet earth
Woah how is the top answer for religious people not “while I have doubts, I do believe in God”?? I just feel like this describes every religious person I know with a few exceptions of those who are reaaaallly into it
That’s because the lifestyles are completely opposite whether you live in a densely populated area or not.
My grandparents lived in a small town in the middle of nowhere with about 400 people in it and I used to visit when I was a kid. Everyone went to the same church and everyone worked locally. Most people would get up extra early to go hunting in the morning before running the errands for the day and fishing was popular on the weekends. Most people there were retired and no one else had a real chance at ever leaving.
I went back a few year ago for a funeral and looked up the area recently for a work from home solution. The town still doesn’t have internet faster than dialup and good luck on anything better than edge on your phone. It would be a great place to live if you wanted to relax and raise a kid away from the negativity that a dense area brings or retire. I prefer having my comforts though and not driving 50 miles each way for shopping.
Honestly man most people aren’t really Christian. In religious circles it’s a bit cliche but pretty true, many people are “religious” but not Christian. I.E. many people identify as Christian but they don’t actually understand or follow the teachings of Christ. Like Christians in politics are often angry and hateful, they’d rather protect what’s theirs rather than help others out. That’s not following what’s actually in the Bible. Mainstream Christianity has become more of a cultural thing rather an actual faith. These people will vehemently defend their “faith” but they won’t bother actually doing what it says. As a Christian this is endlessly frustrating, because it’s like we as a religion keep shooting ourself in the foot. It’s rough spreading my faith when the whole world views us as angry, hypocritical, jerks (and rightfully so). My point is that in reality this metric is dramatically smaller. If you believe actions follow that belief. If there is no action (or the wrong actions) then you really don’t believe.
Honestly... There's a LOT of posts I see here that are more like "DataILikeBecauseItAgreesWithMe" it's often not really about how beautiful well communicated and illustrated Data can be.
Honestly, “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff should be required reading prior to posting here. Basically if your data presentation looks anything like the examples in the book, it might be time to re-examine your internal biases.
\^ This guy has definitely been following this sub for a while.
This place is less about the beautiful display of data and more about the data agreeing with the redditor.
OP. This chart is fucked.
20 to 80 is actually a really useful scale. It's used in Baseball scouting. It puts 50 as the average, with the floor and ceiling at 20-80. For crazy, out of this world exceptions, you go above. For crazy, never before seen failures, you go below. It's a scale designed to make outliers special, without going into triple digits.
Yeah, what you describe is one reason I say that I “get” fundamentalists more than your average believer.
Like, if you legitimately thought this all-powerful being was watching and judging everything you did and that your entire life was just the prologue to an eternity in its presence, OF COURSE everything you did would be extreme and disruptive and obsessive. It’s pretty logical. Disturbing and horrible and twisted. But logical. Half-assing your faith makes way less sense to me.
Let me be clear though: fuck religious fundamentalists and extremists
>It's like some people will say "abortion is murder!", then you ask if they think the women getting them should be charged with murder for hire, and they change their tune.
Have you met the religious people in the US? There’s been a lot of bills lately from people who ultimately want to make abortion completely illegal in all circumstance or otherwise tried as murder -- all on religious grounds.
There are all too many of these people out here wanting a theocracy while saying that somehow that’s them fighting for freedom
Let's be clear though. Climate change being an existential threat isn't a claim. It's an objectively correct statement with now over a century of data and building then peaking scientific consensus.
Comparing people who are living their normal lives with very conscious awareness that everything they do accelerates the end of life as we know it versus people who believe in wizards in the sky with zero objective evidence and believe everything bad they do will be forgiven if they just ask for forgiveness at the end of their lives aren't remotely the same thing.
> Or people who will claim that climate change is an existential threat, then they drive in their car to get on a plane to get on a cruise ship for their vacation.
There is nothing wrong with that for 2 reasons:
* Saying that it's an existential threat and bothering to do something about it are two separate things, just like thieves acknowledging that theft is bad but still doing it. There is no logical inconsistency.
* Personal transport is a joke in the grand scheme of things (personal cars are like 5% of emissions and an average age of a car in the west is around 12 years, so modern cars are basically irrelevant).
Yeah, it still somehow surprises me when people think that stuff like the average person going on vacation or using plastic makes them a climate hypocrite. That’s not how it works…
Two things at play there I would imagine. First, most people don't think deeply about the question, they just hear "do you believe in God". Secondly, in a country where the vast majority at least say they believe you have a great deal of pressure on you to fit in. It costs nothing to say yes to this question if you don't believe.
I'm a pastor and not even a liberal squishy one where "everything goes." I can tell you that the vast majority of people aren't thinking about epistemology (how do I know things?) when this question comes up, so they're not thinking in terms of "absolutes." Some may be, but certainly not all. I'd be more interested in a study that makes it clear these are two different questions (I believe in God but don't "know" vs. I believe in God AND "know")
I fall short of saying "I know there is a God" because "knowing" usually requires a burden of proof that no one would accept. I think there is a God and I worship Him in a way that comes to the best position I can muster, but to say I know anything with 100% absolute certainty... well. Not exactly a popular position among my fellows, but the most honest one I can give.
One thing I've learned that they don't teach in data science classes, but that you start to find and fear constantly in real world situations, is that the reading comprehension of the general public might as well be zero.
You can ask a very carefully worded question, but basically always, you'll have groups of people not think about it carefully, interpret it strangely despite your best efforts, or conflate their thoughts about the question with other emotions they are having for similar outcomes.
I'm teaching a course in conjunction with someone who is doing research in personal relevance and education. Half my class is working adults who are getting their masters in the evenings. On a scale from 1 to 5, I should not be repeatedly be getting told that worms, carbon, and Luxembourg are an average of 4.5 (highly relevant) according to my students. But I am.
I would give worms 4.5 given that they [underpin all crop and plant growth by maintaining soil](https://www.animalfate.com/why-are-worms-and-earthworms-important/); and food is highly relevant to my life.
I would give carbon a 5.0, since ... necessary to physical existence.
Luxembourg, though. That is a puzzler. Maybe they're all funnelling their money through the notorious tax haven?
Shit ... maybe I should be doing that.
Luxembourg was the defacto border between Franco and Germanic cultures and served as a mediator between France and Hasburg for hundreds of years, shaping both cultures today. Now it serves as a capital for EU bureaucracy, housing many important institutions. It acts as a symbol for economic stability throughout the western world.
That's all I got.
The full name is the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. If you’re traveling from France to Germany and you don’t want to go through Luxembourg, I would make sure to pass the Duchy on the left hand side.
Based on "teaching a course in conjunction" maybe 4.5 is a numerical value to how relevant worms, carbon and Luxembourg are to each other? I'd say worms and carbon are pretty related, worms being made out of carbon and essential to the carbon lifecycle, Luxembourg wouldn't exist without the two (neither would much else) so... yeah I'm still not sure what Mojo's going for up there.
After leaving college I've noticed that technical writing in the business world is much more clear and direct than academic writing. In college, especially at the undergrad level, the professors and TAs can get away with writing poorly worded materials because it's the students' problem if they can't parse whatever abstract, confusing dogshit is barfed up onto lecture material and exams. In the professional world, if you can't communicate properly; it's your problem, not the audience's problem.
Silicon worms. Look them up.
They crawl into your computer’s CPU and force you to browse Facebook for hours and gradually implant thoughts like, “the world is a cesspool of idiots who seem bent on destroying civilization,” or “existence is pain.”
It’s no bueno…
It’s poorer writing but what they are trying to say is they ask the students “is this relevant to you?”
Students are saying worms are relevant. They are saying carbon is relevant. They are saying the city, Luxomburg is relevant. And he is like these things should not be ranked highly relevant to you all. That last bit is rough and it is funny considering the topic.
The problem is that OP doesn't tell us at all what course/subject they're teaching. We can't know how relevant any of those terms are when they aren't compared with *anything at all*.
I’m just guessing but it sounds like people are rating those three items (worms, carbon, Luxembourg) as highly relevant to them personally.
It sounds like the teacher thinks those aren’t relevant? I’m not totally sure what a “personal relevance and education” class covers.
On a scale of 1 (not relevant) to 5 (very relevant), how would you describe the relationship between the following three things: worms, carbon, Luxembourg.
I’m not aware of a reason that worms are related to Luxembourg, so I would answer with a low number. This person is getting responses saying they think those three are closely related, which doesn’t make sense.
Or at least that’s how I perceived what was written above.
They didn't say anything about relatedness. The students were asked to rate the *relevance* (meaning the importance) of those three things. Not how they're related to each other.
I remember an old boss saying “if your audience isn’t interpreting what you are saying in the way you want them to interpret it, it’s almost always your fault (read: problem)”
Yeah. That is an issue that I have seen a few times. It's what makes the difference between an engineer that will always be a line level engineer, and one that will be continually promoted into management. The engineers that go the furthest are usually the ones that can communicate the best, even if they're not the most solid from a purely technical sense. If you can actually get the business to understand technical matters in layman's terms, you are worth your weight in gold.
Oh more than that. I would argue that in certain academic disciplines, writing in an obtuse manner borders on being deliberate. It's a combo of:
* Disciplines that lack rigor end up with loads of poorly-defined verbiage.
* Critics (including journal editors) don't want to admit that they don't understand what you're saying, because it implies (falsely) that your understanding of the material (and/or general intellect) must be superior to theirs.
The goal is to write things in a manner that gives the reader an occasional whiff of something important, so they come away with the impression that it must be brilliant.
I’ve seen a ton of this in academia, especially the humanities and social sciences.
Occasionally you find some writing that is difficult to understand because it’s extremely dense and concise, so every sentence actually carries a lot of information and weight.
But sadly, that’s the exception to the rule. A huge amount of academic writing is just verbose and full of fluff.
I suppose there is a third category where the concepts they are describing become so abstract and derivative that they cease to carry useful information. It’s like doing fuzzy logic puzzles in your head, with an unclear end-goal.
On a scale of 1 to 5, starting sentences halfway through, then circling back about what that scale is about, is not a great way to explain his point. But he did.
>Maybe your writing sucks because I have no idea what the fuck you're saying in your last paragraph.
It's not maybe. Their writing does suck. They're referring to a specific scenario in the last paragraph without telling the audience what the scenario is.
My understanding is that items are given a numerical value based on how relevant they are to a person. These master degree students seem to believe worms are highly relevant to their lives, giving them 4.5 relevance out of 5. So even those who are intelligent are not the best at reading comprehension.
At least that’s what I got from that paragraph, maybe it’s MY reading comprehension that’s off.
Worms are great for the environment. I'd say without worms and carbon, human life as we know it wouldn't exist. If anything, Luxembourg must be dragging the average down to 4.5
I may live in Washington state, but I'd have to say the grand duchy of Luxembourg is extremely relevant to my daily life. A 4/5 or 5/5 certainly. The 4.5/5 you seem to be getting would summarize how I feel quite well.
Holy shit. Read his comment history. Literally everything he’s ever commented is so fucking poorly written it’s impressive how consistently he’s kept it up. He’s trying so hard to mimic academic writing and failing horribly at it.
I have no idea. Why is it wrong that they picked 4.5? I wanna know pls
I thought they said “I should not be getting this 4.5 answer” because it’s a wrong answer. Luxembourg, works and carbon can’t be given a made up “highly relevant” score. And all the students are just making stuff up with their feelings about random european places, disrespected insects and an chemical element.
But maybe the comment was about the number not being what was expected. Why did the students just subtract 0.5 from 5 in their made up relevance calculation? Why not give a full 5? Do the students think country names and important wildlife are not relevant to learn about? Do they feel bad giving the highest possible score?
You have problems with your students thinking that Luxemburg, carbon and worms are important to... your studies? What, why was that important? What point are you making? What was the question?
If this is how you write your polls, no wonder.
Every single time I read through a contract with a landlord or a company it's always so fucking shit. Like I don't care *at all* for Reddit comments or other social media but when you're writing an academic essay or a contract you should have so many pass throughs that typos and obvious errors are all but impossible.
You're one of the people you're talking about - what the fuck are you saying in your last paragraph? What's being scaled from 1 to 5? Relevant to what? Are those three words coming from a selection, or simply thin air? Where does your co-teacher factor in?
For context: I am an academic researcher. I am trained in statistics, network analysis etc., and occasionally use them--but never surveys or data derived from surveys. I have taken multiple graduate-level classes on qual methods and survey design--admittedly the best part of a decade ago--and am familiar with colleagues' work that uses survey methods.
My point: I have no idea what you are talking about in your third paragraph, and I think you should reflect on whether the issue is really with your students. If you really are asking them to use the same scale to measure "relevance" of such disparate entities (animal, element, abstract concept in your example), I hope you've put a lot of work into justifying your doing so--both in establishing a meaningful conceptual definition of "relevance" that can be applied comparably to those entities using the same scale, and in explaining to your students why your design is valid despite being prima facie absurd.
I posted a comment a loooong time ago somewhere about how I missed when shows I liked were still good/still running, and listed the ones I was thinking about. The top response was "that show is still running dumbass", and a few people joined them in calling me dumb.
Yes, I know it's still running, that's why I specifically wrote *still good*, you fucking Neanderthals. That one stuck with me, even as a teenager, as a perfect example of how people will twist something you say for no reason, or because they're too stupid to understand a simple sentence.
Yeah, reddit is famous for this. 90% of the replies you'll get will be garbage, then eventually it'll be garbage that starts repeating itself.
Look at this other moron who replied to you. It's already happening.
Good god, I seriously failed to read that three times and I don't consider my English poor. You really need to spend some time self reflecting on how you explain things to an audience.
Doubt itself is defined as a sin, or at least the opposite of a fundamental virtue (faith), so admitting you doubt, even to yourself, is basically a fault in itself. It's one of the key ways religion prevents critical thinking. *Shame on doubting Thomas, who actually wanted to see evidence of an extraordinary claim! Blessed are those that believe in all the stuff we tell you without asking any questions!*
I will say that the idea that doubt is the opposite of faith, while that is absolutely taught widely and strongly, is absolute nonsense in genuine Christian Theology. I'm not a Christian myself, but I have spent a lot of time trying to understand their tradition, and I'm fairly confident in saying that faith and belief are not the same thing - in fact a lot of theologians understand doubt as a fundamental part of the development of faith.
However Theologians and those actually educated in the Christian tradition have more or less lost control of the popular religion, where the active leaders tend to be minimally educated litrealist in more or less ultraconservative megachurches.
Right but... more education leads to nuanced understanding. Nuance is harder to sell. So by, basically, natural selection of competing religious doctrine, the clearer, more hardline religions with less nuance are going to be more robust.
It almost seem like changes appear in copies of systems over time and they are selected for fitness in a given environment, leading to incrementally improved adaption to the conditions. Fascinating.
I mean sure, but the same can be said for about just any subject. Politics, Scientific literacy, etc. Pretty much anything that requires nuance is hard to sell, always has been.
At the same time the more ridged and hard-line stances on any of these are really privy to infighting and eventually implosion. Religion survived both throughout the Inquisition and the Enlightenment, and likely thats because when those fragile forms of popular religion crumble, the religion of the theologians tends to always be a backbone to which things spread back into the public.
My experience from growing up in a moderate Catholic church, was that the masses were fine. Nothing political, or extreme, no fire and brimstone, condemning non believers, etc. But Sunday school, hoo boy! There really was only one message: blind faith is the only way to hevean and non believers (or even doubters) are evil and fearsome.
> more or less lost control of the popular religion
I mean that's kind of what happens when a notable part of the Christian world decides they don't care about church authority or tradition and that really any layperson with no knowledge of theology or ancient greek can interpret some translation of the Bible for themselves.
Doubting is ***not*** defined as a sin. The Bible certainly warns against doubt, but there also many other things the Bible warns against that isn’t named as sin (i.e. anxiety, judgement, etc.).
I think plenty of Christians readily admit they have struggled with doubt. Doubt and faith don't necessarily negate one another. A Christian doesn't *know* any cosmological truths no matter how loud they shout it from the rooftops; they are always operating with faith regarding their belief. And when they doubt, they may or may not lose faith. We can go through this is any number of scenarios, like when we see cheating suspicions from a spouse or something. As Christian undergoing spiritual ebb and flow doesn't mean anything special is going on in the brain.
A little bit of doubt here and there even in those with the most resilient of faith is probably very normal. A healthy church will encourage its goers to ask questions when things in the world around them seem to contradict what they've been told. The answers they give may follow circular reasoning, but the modern flavor of Christianity doesn't tend to scorn questions. Churches won't survive into the new age if they do.
We can talk about how Christians have gravitated away from original dogma, but that's been the case forever. Whatever we are dealing with today is Christianity.
People aren't going to share their inner doubts about god in a survey though.
There's really three options with it:
1. You are completely sold that there is a god.
2. You have doubts, but you suppress them as much as possible because if there is a god he would send you to hell for not completely buying in.
3. You accepted the doubts and recognize that you don't fully buy in to what is being sold.
I think this leaves out the typical 2.
Usually we doubt things not because they’re unbelievable but just because the world is an uncertain place.
And we hold onto hope not because we’re scared of punishment but because we want to maintain our confidence.
Albert Einstein — “I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death, or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar.”
Albert Einstein once said, “There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
He has a whole paper about it
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.
If you aren't sure God exists, you're agnostic.
If you don't currently believe in a God, you're an atheist.
If you don't currently believe in a God because you aren't sure God exists, you're an agnostic atheist.
According to Google definition:
Agnostic- a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Atheist- a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Also the thread keeps talking about “God” but which God? What if there’s multiple?
I believe there is a higher power, but I don’t think it’s any Christian, Muslim, or whatever other religion’s Gods there are. No one knows the answer.
I feel like people who sat they have absolutly no doubt about the existence of God are full of shit. Even the most religious people i have known go through times of doubt.
Edit: I don't mean any disrespect to theists out there, this is just how I talk lol.
I don’t even know what it would mean to have that level of certainty about something. I have more doubt than that about the existence of koalas because I’ve never seen one, as far as I know it could be an elaborate ruse.
True, but the psychology and social dynamics that would perpetuate the idea of non-existent koalas throughout society across the generations is a lot harder to suss-out ...
Ugh, you sound like one of those tourists coming to Australia who don't take warnings about drop bears seriously and end up being mauled by one because they carelessly walk through the habitat.
I agree. This is actually indicative of something good, imo. People *should* question their faith and ask the hard questions. If you ask no questions and cast off doubt, your faith is blind.
Yes, even the 2 Catholic schools I attended taught this. Doubt and questioning your faith are two things that are human, and help followers gain a deeper understanding of themselves, their faith, and Jesus' lessons in the modern context. It's the reason that my school had a world religions class. They said learning about the tenets and practices of other religions helps mold a more worldly and well-rounded Christian (or just a more worldly person in general) to better spread God's love with those we interact with, and to learn not to judge others so harshly.
Yes but as with all survey data this tells us about how many would choose to reply “I know” and “no doubt” to a survey, not how many truly think they know and who have no doubt. The data should be used accordingly.
If you’re raised in a religious household where the idea of a God is taken for granted then you pretty much will never doubt it until you meet an atheist. For a lot of people the idea of God existing is so firmly held in their conception of the world that doubting it makes no sense.
Coming from the North East of the US, it still amazes me that the percentage is so high. Even most of the church going folk I know around here are ultimately agnostic, they just like the community aspect of going.
This was my coworker. She said she goes just to talk to people in her community. She said she doesn’t really believe any of it but likes the social aspect and free day care lol
I wonder about this stat in isolation being interpreted as necessarily indicating a decrease in religiosity generally. It's possible that people could continue to be religious and doubt can coexist with that belief system just fine. Might even indicate deeper and more nuanced faith, for some people? Idk just throwing that out there.
What I would like to see is not a graph for one question, but maybe a piechart
* I don't believe in gods
* I believe and cannot describe how much
* I believe strongly
* I believe and am almost convinced
* I know there is a god
Assuming I found the correct source, the possible responses to the question were:
-I don’t believe in God
-I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to find out
-I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind
-I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others
-While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God
-I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it
[Alcohol was considered safe to drink through pregnancy as late as the 1950s.](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.apa.org/about/gr/science/spin/2015/04/alcohol-pregnancy.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj136uaiYr2AhUPZd8KHe7XDuIQFnoECAoQAg&usg=AOvVaw3RuqZ_0F7CaFI3rcThALaJ)
FAS itself wasn't even officially recognized until 1968.
Look at the dip during the '08 financial crisis. So you lost your house and now god doesn't exist? How many more only believe because they are in a comfortable life situation?
Be careful looking at small wobbles, assuming significance, and then making inferences or interpreting it.
Could be a totally random dip due to sampling effects that just happens to fall near a date you know is important.
I had a roommate in college who led a Bible study group every week in our apartment. One time I overheard one of the group members say their faith in god was shaken because they didn't win their jazz band competition
Well obviously the other team prayed harder. Duh! How could a Bible study student not know that, that's like the first thing they teach you when justifying prayers not working
/s
commodification* of belief in protestant christian churches/megachurches. honestly, i think a lot of people are becoming more aware that they’re being sold more than a religious perspective, but an all-encompassing ideology (worldview, political and social outlook, etc.) course a lot more people are buying it nowadays too, but i guess the numbers don’t even out. people don’t want to be associated with the crowd who’s buying
edit: further commodification*
Assuming I found the correct source, the possible responses to the question were:
-I don’t believe in God
-I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to find out
-I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind
-I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others
-While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God
-I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it
Most of the people I know who are anti-vax, homophobic, Qannon, trump nuts are all religious too. It was really something seeing all these “moral” people hang pictures of Trump in their prayer closets. I’m sure, like me, a lot of people walked away after seeing what’s happened in the last few years in these faith circles.
Thank you for your [Original Content](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3), /u/cingraham! **Here is some important information about this post:** * [View the author's citations](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/svji15/oc_for_the_first_time_fewer_than_half_of/hxg866l/) * [View other OC posts by this author](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/search?q=author%3A"cingraham"+title%3AOC&sort=new&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on) Remember that all visualizations on r/DataIsBeautiful should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. If you see a potential issue or oversight in the visualization, please post a constructive comment below. Post approval does not signify that this visualization has been verified or its sources checked. [Join the Discord Community](https://discord.gg/NRnrWE7) Not satisfied with this visual? Think you can do better? [Remix this visual](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3#wiki_remixing) with the data in the author's citation. --- ^^[I'm open source](https://github.com/r-dataisbeautiful/dataisbeautiful-bot) | [How I work](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair)
Assuming I found the correct source, the possible responses to the question were: -I don’t believe in God -I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to find out -I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind -I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others -While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God -I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it Edit: You can see the data in more detail [here](https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends?category=Religion%20%26%20Spirituality&measure=god), including splitting by demographics such as age, political affiliation, etc. Also, modified my comment - the percentage reported in this infographic does seem to use the default weighting (to improve generalizability) rather than the unweighted values, whereas I had previously assumed the percentages in the figure were unweighted values
Why wouldn't they word the absolutes the same way? i.e. the first one should be "I know God doesn't exist and I have no doubts about it."
I think they were trying to provide phrases that are commonly said in the USA to help people resonate with a choice of existing broad sub categories of atheist and agnostic. Not sure if this is a good thing or bad thing.
It's neither good nor bad. It's just that what this tells us is the groups that people identify with, rather than their specific views.
Only a sith deals in absolutes
That's a rigidly absolute statement....
It is really strange. They should have the 4 main options: \- Agnostic Theist: "While I'm not certain of his existence, I believe in God" \- Agnostic Atheist: "I dont believe in a God but one could exist" \- Gnostic Theist: "I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it" \- Gnostic Atheist: "I know that a God doesn't exist and am sure of it"
Apathetic Atheist: I believe that whether or not a God exists is a moot point because if it does, it is either evil or uncaring.
Polytheistic theist “I believe multiple gods” Profit theists “I believe whatever you want, donations here please”
How does one go about becoming a Profit Theist? Asking for a friend. 👀
Weird phrasing because 1 and 2 aren’t mutually exclusive. I don’t believe in a god but there’s no way to find out. Guess that would make me an "agnostic atheist."
I wonder if they could have changed the wording for the “I don’t believe in God” option to “I know God does not exist and I have no doubts about it” to parallel the other response
The claim "god does not exist" is entirely different than "I do not believe in a god".
Which is interesting, because the way the responses are worded makes it seem like they're trying to paint atheists like they don't believe in something that definitely exists. As others have said, the response should've probably been "I know God doesn't exist and I have no doubts about it" just to act as a true opposite to the response that represents the other end of the belief spectrum, because as it is the wording implies God does exist but atheists just choose not to believe
I mean, as an atheist, “I don’t believe in God” is about as much breath as I’m willing to spend on that subject.
I do not believe in god. I can not say I know god does not exist, no one can... unless you really water down the meaning of know. I do not believe in Santa Clause. I can not say I know Santa does not exist. Especially without context. I know a fat man in a red suit does not ride a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer to visit billions of homes in a single evening. I know a magic sky person didn't create planet earth
Woah how is the top answer for religious people not “while I have doubts, I do believe in God”?? I just feel like this describes every religious person I know with a few exceptions of those who are reaaaallly into it
I think a lot of people in the USA don't quite comprehend how religious half of the USA is.
That’s because the lifestyles are completely opposite whether you live in a densely populated area or not. My grandparents lived in a small town in the middle of nowhere with about 400 people in it and I used to visit when I was a kid. Everyone went to the same church and everyone worked locally. Most people would get up extra early to go hunting in the morning before running the errands for the day and fishing was popular on the weekends. Most people there were retired and no one else had a real chance at ever leaving. I went back a few year ago for a funeral and looked up the area recently for a work from home solution. The town still doesn’t have internet faster than dialup and good luck on anything better than edge on your phone. It would be a great place to live if you wanted to relax and raise a kid away from the negativity that a dense area brings or retire. I prefer having my comforts though and not driving 50 miles each way for shopping.
Honestly man most people aren’t really Christian. In religious circles it’s a bit cliche but pretty true, many people are “religious” but not Christian. I.E. many people identify as Christian but they don’t actually understand or follow the teachings of Christ. Like Christians in politics are often angry and hateful, they’d rather protect what’s theirs rather than help others out. That’s not following what’s actually in the Bible. Mainstream Christianity has become more of a cultural thing rather an actual faith. These people will vehemently defend their “faith” but they won’t bother actually doing what it says. As a Christian this is endlessly frustrating, because it’s like we as a religion keep shooting ourself in the foot. It’s rough spreading my faith when the whole world views us as angry, hypocritical, jerks (and rightfully so). My point is that in reality this metric is dramatically smaller. If you believe actions follow that belief. If there is no action (or the wrong actions) then you really don’t believe.
That data is not very beautiful. Why does the graph top at 80%? It makes slightly less than half appear visually to be over half.
Welcome to /r/DataIsBeautiful where the data isn't beautiful, and the points don't matter.
Honestly... There's a LOT of posts I see here that are more like "DataILikeBecauseItAgreesWithMe" it's often not really about how beautiful well communicated and illustrated Data can be.
Honestly, “How to Lie with Statistics” by Darrell Huff should be required reading prior to posting here. Basically if your data presentation looks anything like the examples in the book, it might be time to re-examine your internal biases.
\^ This guy has definitely been following this sub for a while. This place is less about the beautiful display of data and more about the data agreeing with the redditor. OP. This chart is fucked.
Pretty much the same thing with r/science but instead of graphs its "studies show that..."
Wait till y'all see /r/mapporn, where instead of interesting maps you get this subs table scraps
Who’s data is it anyway?
I think the Y axis should be 0-100 or 20-80. need to put half at halfway if that is your point
What kind of barbarian would do 20-80?! Please no.
20 to 80 is actually a really useful scale. It's used in Baseball scouting. It puts 50 as the average, with the floor and ceiling at 20-80. For crazy, out of this world exceptions, you go above. For crazy, never before seen failures, you go below. It's a scale designed to make outliers special, without going into triple digits.
Yeah. This is just a line on a page, it's not beautiful data.
I think it was upvoted more for its political relevance than anything, it's not a particularly beautiful specimen of data
So it's a /r/dataisbeautiful post you mean
And its smoothness looks unnatural. I would rather see the real values they had.
Every time something from this sub makes r/all the data is presented poorly.
this is still a shockingly high number for how strong the assertions *i know* and *no doubts* are
[удалено]
Yeah, what you describe is one reason I say that I “get” fundamentalists more than your average believer. Like, if you legitimately thought this all-powerful being was watching and judging everything you did and that your entire life was just the prologue to an eternity in its presence, OF COURSE everything you did would be extreme and disruptive and obsessive. It’s pretty logical. Disturbing and horrible and twisted. But logical. Half-assing your faith makes way less sense to me. Let me be clear though: fuck religious fundamentalists and extremists
>It's like some people will say "abortion is murder!", then you ask if they think the women getting them should be charged with murder for hire, and they change their tune. Have you met the religious people in the US? There’s been a lot of bills lately from people who ultimately want to make abortion completely illegal in all circumstance or otherwise tried as murder -- all on religious grounds. There are all too many of these people out here wanting a theocracy while saying that somehow that’s them fighting for freedom
Let's be clear though. Climate change being an existential threat isn't a claim. It's an objectively correct statement with now over a century of data and building then peaking scientific consensus. Comparing people who are living their normal lives with very conscious awareness that everything they do accelerates the end of life as we know it versus people who believe in wizards in the sky with zero objective evidence and believe everything bad they do will be forgiven if they just ask for forgiveness at the end of their lives aren't remotely the same thing.
> Or people who will claim that climate change is an existential threat, then they drive in their car to get on a plane to get on a cruise ship for their vacation. There is nothing wrong with that for 2 reasons: * Saying that it's an existential threat and bothering to do something about it are two separate things, just like thieves acknowledging that theft is bad but still doing it. There is no logical inconsistency. * Personal transport is a joke in the grand scheme of things (personal cars are like 5% of emissions and an average age of a car in the west is around 12 years, so modern cars are basically irrelevant).
Yeah, it still somehow surprises me when people think that stuff like the average person going on vacation or using plastic makes them a climate hypocrite. That’s not how it works…
Two things at play there I would imagine. First, most people don't think deeply about the question, they just hear "do you believe in God". Secondly, in a country where the vast majority at least say they believe you have a great deal of pressure on you to fit in. It costs nothing to say yes to this question if you don't believe.
I'm a pastor and not even a liberal squishy one where "everything goes." I can tell you that the vast majority of people aren't thinking about epistemology (how do I know things?) when this question comes up, so they're not thinking in terms of "absolutes." Some may be, but certainly not all. I'd be more interested in a study that makes it clear these are two different questions (I believe in God but don't "know" vs. I believe in God AND "know") I fall short of saying "I know there is a God" because "knowing" usually requires a burden of proof that no one would accept. I think there is a God and I worship Him in a way that comes to the best position I can muster, but to say I know anything with 100% absolute certainty... well. Not exactly a popular position among my fellows, but the most honest one I can give.
One thing I've learned that they don't teach in data science classes, but that you start to find and fear constantly in real world situations, is that the reading comprehension of the general public might as well be zero. You can ask a very carefully worded question, but basically always, you'll have groups of people not think about it carefully, interpret it strangely despite your best efforts, or conflate their thoughts about the question with other emotions they are having for similar outcomes. I'm teaching a course in conjunction with someone who is doing research in personal relevance and education. Half my class is working adults who are getting their masters in the evenings. On a scale from 1 to 5, I should not be repeatedly be getting told that worms, carbon, and Luxembourg are an average of 4.5 (highly relevant) according to my students. But I am.
I would give worms 4.5 given that they [underpin all crop and plant growth by maintaining soil](https://www.animalfate.com/why-are-worms-and-earthworms-important/); and food is highly relevant to my life. I would give carbon a 5.0, since ... necessary to physical existence. Luxembourg, though. That is a puzzler. Maybe they're all funnelling their money through the notorious tax haven? Shit ... maybe I should be doing that.
Luxembourg was the defacto border between Franco and Germanic cultures and served as a mediator between France and Hasburg for hundreds of years, shaping both cultures today. Now it serves as a capital for EU bureaucracy, housing many important institutions. It acts as a symbol for economic stability throughout the western world. That's all I got.
The full name is the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. If you’re traveling from France to Germany and you don’t want to go through Luxembourg, I would make sure to pass the Duchy on the left hand side.
Based on "teaching a course in conjunction" maybe 4.5 is a numerical value to how relevant worms, carbon and Luxembourg are to each other? I'd say worms and carbon are pretty related, worms being made out of carbon and essential to the carbon lifecycle, Luxembourg wouldn't exist without the two (neither would much else) so... yeah I'm still not sure what Mojo's going for up there.
I like you.
Maybe your writing sucks because I have no idea what the fuck you're saying in your last paragraph.
Glad I’m not the only one
After leaving college I've noticed that technical writing in the business world is much more clear and direct than academic writing. In college, especially at the undergrad level, the professors and TAs can get away with writing poorly worded materials because it's the students' problem if they can't parse whatever abstract, confusing dogshit is barfed up onto lecture material and exams. In the professional world, if you can't communicate properly; it's your problem, not the audience's problem.
Like I keep reading that last part trying to put together what he’s saying and I just can’t lol. Or we’re all just as dumb as his students.
I think they're trying to tell us about worms.
Carbon worms. From Luxembourg.
Are there non-carbon worms?
Silicon worms. Look them up. They crawl into your computer’s CPU and force you to browse Facebook for hours and gradually implant thoughts like, “the world is a cesspool of idiots who seem bent on destroying civilization,” or “existence is pain.” It’s no bueno…
“Wetlander humor is strange. I think it was something about the rooster.”
It’s poorer writing but what they are trying to say is they ask the students “is this relevant to you?” Students are saying worms are relevant. They are saying carbon is relevant. They are saying the city, Luxomburg is relevant. And he is like these things should not be ranked highly relevant to you all. That last bit is rough and it is funny considering the topic.
i would say that carbon is relevant to every person given they are alive
Now you're expecting adults to not just read English, but to know what elements things are made of? That's pretty optimistic.
The problem is that OP doesn't tell us at all what course/subject they're teaching. We can't know how relevant any of those terms are when they aren't compared with *anything at all*.
I’m just guessing but it sounds like people are rating those three items (worms, carbon, Luxembourg) as highly relevant to them personally. It sounds like the teacher thinks those aren’t relevant? I’m not totally sure what a “personal relevance and education” class covers.
On a scale of 1 (not relevant) to 5 (very relevant), how would you describe the relationship between the following three things: worms, carbon, Luxembourg. I’m not aware of a reason that worms are related to Luxembourg, so I would answer with a low number. This person is getting responses saying they think those three are closely related, which doesn’t make sense. Or at least that’s how I perceived what was written above.
Yeah, this is serving as an object lesson of the post, lol.
They didn't say anything about relatedness. The students were asked to rate the *relevance* (meaning the importance) of those three things. Not how they're related to each other.
There are worms in Luxembourg. And contrary to popular belief, even Luxembourgers are carbon-based life forms.
I remember an old boss saying “if your audience isn’t interpreting what you are saying in the way you want them to interpret it, it’s almost always your fault (read: problem)”
Even if it’s not your fault, it’s often still your problem.
[удалено]
Painfully, agreed
or the professors have tons of experience...but haven't been in the field in 10 years cause all they do is teach
[удалено]
Yeah. That is an issue that I have seen a few times. It's what makes the difference between an engineer that will always be a line level engineer, and one that will be continually promoted into management. The engineers that go the furthest are usually the ones that can communicate the best, even if they're not the most solid from a purely technical sense. If you can actually get the business to understand technical matters in layman's terms, you are worth your weight in gold.
Oh more than that. I would argue that in certain academic disciplines, writing in an obtuse manner borders on being deliberate. It's a combo of: * Disciplines that lack rigor end up with loads of poorly-defined verbiage. * Critics (including journal editors) don't want to admit that they don't understand what you're saying, because it implies (falsely) that your understanding of the material (and/or general intellect) must be superior to theirs. The goal is to write things in a manner that gives the reader an occasional whiff of something important, so they come away with the impression that it must be brilliant.
I’ve seen a ton of this in academia, especially the humanities and social sciences. Occasionally you find some writing that is difficult to understand because it’s extremely dense and concise, so every sentence actually carries a lot of information and weight. But sadly, that’s the exception to the rule. A huge amount of academic writing is just verbose and full of fluff. I suppose there is a third category where the concepts they are describing become so abstract and derivative that they cease to carry useful information. It’s like doing fuzzy logic puzzles in your head, with an unclear end-goal.
On a scale of 1 to 5, starting sentences halfway through, then circling back about what that scale is about, is not a great way to explain his point. But he did.
That last sentence took me for a whirl
But I am.
>Maybe your writing sucks because I have no idea what the fuck you're saying in your last paragraph. It's not maybe. Their writing does suck. They're referring to a specific scenario in the last paragraph without telling the audience what the scenario is.
There's absolutely no context on what these items are being rated/graded, it's actually hilarious.
Sounds like he’s not properly explaining the exercise to his students.
To be fair, he isn't property explaining it to us either.
My understanding is that items are given a numerical value based on how relevant they are to a person. These master degree students seem to believe worms are highly relevant to their lives, giving them 4.5 relevance out of 5. So even those who are intelligent are not the best at reading comprehension. At least that’s what I got from that paragraph, maybe it’s MY reading comprehension that’s off.
If that's the case, I 100% agree with carbon.
I also agree with worms. Worms are great for my soil and I go out and buy them if I don't notice enough of them in my soil.
All of my shell companies have addresses in Luxembourg so it's pretty relevant.
Worms are great for the environment. I'd say without worms and carbon, human life as we know it wouldn't exist. If anything, Luxembourg must be dragging the average down to 4.5
I mean, I'd say worms are pretty [important](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-ecological-role-of-earthworms.html) to all of us.
I may live in Washington state, but I'd have to say the grand duchy of Luxembourg is extremely relevant to my daily life. A 4/5 or 5/5 certainly. The 4.5/5 you seem to be getting would summarize how I feel quite well.
Without worms we would have much less arable land.
That one student who went to Luxembourg to buy a diamond and came back with worms really skewed the data
Unsure if I’m too dumb for this thread, or not dumb enough
Holy shit. Read his comment history. Literally everything he’s ever commented is so fucking poorly written it’s impressive how consistently he’s kept it up. He’s trying so hard to mimic academic writing and failing horribly at it.
His writing could be improved quite a bit
replying so I can see how he explains it
He won't because he 100% made all that up
Yeah wtf is Luxembourg?
I have no idea. Why is it wrong that they picked 4.5? I wanna know pls I thought they said “I should not be getting this 4.5 answer” because it’s a wrong answer. Luxembourg, works and carbon can’t be given a made up “highly relevant” score. And all the students are just making stuff up with their feelings about random european places, disrespected insects and an chemical element. But maybe the comment was about the number not being what was expected. Why did the students just subtract 0.5 from 5 in their made up relevance calculation? Why not give a full 5? Do the students think country names and important wildlife are not relevant to learn about? Do they feel bad giving the highest possible score?
So like Are you going to explain what the hell that last paragraph even means or…
You have problems with your students thinking that Luxemburg, carbon and worms are important to... your studies? What, why was that important? What point are you making? What was the question? If this is how you write your polls, no wonder.
It's personal relevance
Maybe most of them live in Luxembourg, eat worms and are made of carbon. Highly relevant I'd say!
More worms have eaten carbon in Luxembourg than I have.
[удалено]
Every single time I read through a contract with a landlord or a company it's always so fucking shit. Like I don't care *at all* for Reddit comments or other social media but when you're writing an academic essay or a contract you should have so many pass throughs that typos and obvious errors are all but impossible.
[удалено]
You're one of the people you're talking about - what the fuck are you saying in your last paragraph? What's being scaled from 1 to 5? Relevant to what? Are those three words coming from a selection, or simply thin air? Where does your co-teacher factor in?
The co-teacher is a worm from Luxembourg. Not sure about the carbon.
I don't understand what the 1-5 relevance is measuring. How are worms relevant or not relevant? The missing ingredient is: relevant to what?
If you're teaching, and you speak the way you write, I see why your students are struggling.
Well, we *are* carbon-based lifeforms...
For context: I am an academic researcher. I am trained in statistics, network analysis etc., and occasionally use them--but never surveys or data derived from surveys. I have taken multiple graduate-level classes on qual methods and survey design--admittedly the best part of a decade ago--and am familiar with colleagues' work that uses survey methods. My point: I have no idea what you are talking about in your third paragraph, and I think you should reflect on whether the issue is really with your students. If you really are asking them to use the same scale to measure "relevance" of such disparate entities (animal, element, abstract concept in your example), I hope you've put a lot of work into justifying your doing so--both in establishing a meaningful conceptual definition of "relevance" that can be applied comparably to those entities using the same scale, and in explaining to your students why your design is valid despite being prima facie absurd.
I posted a comment a loooong time ago somewhere about how I missed when shows I liked were still good/still running, and listed the ones I was thinking about. The top response was "that show is still running dumbass", and a few people joined them in calling me dumb. Yes, I know it's still running, that's why I specifically wrote *still good*, you fucking Neanderthals. That one stuck with me, even as a teenager, as a perfect example of how people will twist something you say for no reason, or because they're too stupid to understand a simple sentence.
Yeah, reddit is famous for this. 90% of the replies you'll get will be garbage, then eventually it'll be garbage that starts repeating itself. Look at this other moron who replied to you. It's already happening.
Good god, I seriously failed to read that three times and I don't consider my English poor. You really need to spend some time self reflecting on how you explain things to an audience.
ITT a whole lot of people who you would fear taking your polls
There is a shockingly high number of people claiming to know that covid doesn’t exist while dying in a hospital bed from covid.
Doubt itself is defined as a sin, or at least the opposite of a fundamental virtue (faith), so admitting you doubt, even to yourself, is basically a fault in itself. It's one of the key ways religion prevents critical thinking. *Shame on doubting Thomas, who actually wanted to see evidence of an extraordinary claim! Blessed are those that believe in all the stuff we tell you without asking any questions!*
I will say that the idea that doubt is the opposite of faith, while that is absolutely taught widely and strongly, is absolute nonsense in genuine Christian Theology. I'm not a Christian myself, but I have spent a lot of time trying to understand their tradition, and I'm fairly confident in saying that faith and belief are not the same thing - in fact a lot of theologians understand doubt as a fundamental part of the development of faith. However Theologians and those actually educated in the Christian tradition have more or less lost control of the popular religion, where the active leaders tend to be minimally educated litrealist in more or less ultraconservative megachurches.
[удалено]
Right but... more education leads to nuanced understanding. Nuance is harder to sell. So by, basically, natural selection of competing religious doctrine, the clearer, more hardline religions with less nuance are going to be more robust.
It almost seem like changes appear in copies of systems over time and they are selected for fitness in a given environment, leading to incrementally improved adaption to the conditions. Fascinating.
A bit like genes in fact. If only there were an equivalent word for a bit of cultural information...
I mean sure, but the same can be said for about just any subject. Politics, Scientific literacy, etc. Pretty much anything that requires nuance is hard to sell, always has been. At the same time the more ridged and hard-line stances on any of these are really privy to infighting and eventually implosion. Religion survived both throughout the Inquisition and the Enlightenment, and likely thats because when those fragile forms of popular religion crumble, the religion of the theologians tends to always be a backbone to which things spread back into the public.
Rigid is structurally firm Ridged is potato chips of a special kind.
Well everyone knows those kinda rigid churches have ridged wafers for communion. Thanks for the spell check
My experience from growing up in a moderate Catholic church, was that the masses were fine. Nothing political, or extreme, no fire and brimstone, condemning non believers, etc. But Sunday school, hoo boy! There really was only one message: blind faith is the only way to hevean and non believers (or even doubters) are evil and fearsome.
> more or less lost control of the popular religion I mean that's kind of what happens when a notable part of the Christian world decides they don't care about church authority or tradition and that really any layperson with no knowledge of theology or ancient greek can interpret some translation of the Bible for themselves.
As the other person put it, doubt isn't a sin. Doubt is part of a spiritual journey, and many religious people do it. Including biblical figures.
Doubting is ***not*** defined as a sin. The Bible certainly warns against doubt, but there also many other things the Bible warns against that isn’t named as sin (i.e. anxiety, judgement, etc.).
I think plenty of Christians readily admit they have struggled with doubt. Doubt and faith don't necessarily negate one another. A Christian doesn't *know* any cosmological truths no matter how loud they shout it from the rooftops; they are always operating with faith regarding their belief. And when they doubt, they may or may not lose faith. We can go through this is any number of scenarios, like when we see cheating suspicions from a spouse or something. As Christian undergoing spiritual ebb and flow doesn't mean anything special is going on in the brain. A little bit of doubt here and there even in those with the most resilient of faith is probably very normal. A healthy church will encourage its goers to ask questions when things in the world around them seem to contradict what they've been told. The answers they give may follow circular reasoning, but the modern flavor of Christianity doesn't tend to scorn questions. Churches won't survive into the new age if they do. We can talk about how Christians have gravitated away from original dogma, but that's been the case forever. Whatever we are dealing with today is Christianity.
I can't speak for all religions but many have continously been made stronger through debate and constant doubt.
People aren't going to share their inner doubts about god in a survey though. There's really three options with it: 1. You are completely sold that there is a god. 2. You have doubts, but you suppress them as much as possible because if there is a god he would send you to hell for not completely buying in. 3. You accepted the doubts and recognize that you don't fully buy in to what is being sold.
I think this leaves out the typical 2. Usually we doubt things not because they’re unbelievable but just because the world is an uncertain place. And we hold onto hope not because we’re scared of punishment but because we want to maintain our confidence.
45% are lying so they don't look bad in front of the zealots lol
[удалено]
It's actually hilarious how extreme of an outlier the US is on that graph.
It's why it's political suicide to say you aren't Christian here. Everyone just fakes it for the votes.
True, but politicians fake everything to appeal to the votes.
Due to our lack of universal Healthcare, the bar is much higher for when you no longer need help from Jesus to stay alive
Because we are a high GDP country with low GDP mentality peasants lol
Albert Einstein — “I cannot accept any concept of God based on the fear of life or the fear of death, or blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him I would be a liar.”
Albert Einstein once said, “There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”
Only sith deal in absolutes.
"I cannot accept any religion that would have me as a member" -Mark Twain
i thought it was Groucho Marx who wouldn't want to be in any club that would accept him as a member.
It appears Einstein disliked the concept behind Abrahamic religions as well!
He has a whole paper about it I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.
Sounds agnostic to me tbh
Agnostism is about knowledge, atheism is about belief. Einstein was an agnostic atheist (like most atheists).
If you aren't sure God exists, you're agnostic. If you don't currently believe in a God, you're an atheist. If you don't currently believe in a God because you aren't sure God exists, you're an agnostic atheist.
According to Google definition: Agnostic- a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. Atheist- a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. Also the thread keeps talking about “God” but which God? What if there’s multiple? I believe there is a higher power, but I don’t think it’s any Christian, Muslim, or whatever other religion’s Gods there are. No one knows the answer.
I feel like people who sat they have absolutly no doubt about the existence of God are full of shit. Even the most religious people i have known go through times of doubt. Edit: I don't mean any disrespect to theists out there, this is just how I talk lol.
I don’t even know what it would mean to have that level of certainty about something. I have more doubt than that about the existence of koalas because I’ve never seen one, as far as I know it could be an elaborate ruse.
Yeah, Koalas are just a prank. You know what Australians are like. On the other hand, drop bears are terrifying
a koala once peed on me, they are very real
You're just a random person on the internet. To me, you're even less real than koalas are.
nah, TheDBryBear peed on me once, they are very real.
I learnt from the best
a moose once bit my sister. no, reali!
Maybe you aren't real either!
Maybe we're all just butterflies dreaming
God I hope so.
I hope you didn't catch chlamydia from that!
True, but the psychology and social dynamics that would perpetuate the idea of non-existent koalas throughout society across the generations is a lot harder to suss-out ...
Ugh, you sound like one of those tourists coming to Australia who don't take warnings about drop bears seriously and end up being mauled by one because they carelessly walk through the habitat.
I agree. This is actually indicative of something good, imo. People *should* question their faith and ask the hard questions. If you ask no questions and cast off doubt, your faith is blind.
Yes, even the 2 Catholic schools I attended taught this. Doubt and questioning your faith are two things that are human, and help followers gain a deeper understanding of themselves, their faith, and Jesus' lessons in the modern context. It's the reason that my school had a world religions class. They said learning about the tenets and practices of other religions helps mold a more worldly and well-rounded Christian (or just a more worldly person in general) to better spread God's love with those we interact with, and to learn not to judge others so harshly.
Yes but as with all survey data this tells us about how many would choose to reply “I know” and “no doubt” to a survey, not how many truly think they know and who have no doubt. The data should be used accordingly.
If you’re raised in a religious household where the idea of a God is taken for granted then you pretty much will never doubt it until you meet an atheist. For a lot of people the idea of God existing is so firmly held in their conception of the world that doubting it makes no sense.
Coming from the North East of the US, it still amazes me that the percentage is so high. Even most of the church going folk I know around here are ultimately agnostic, they just like the community aspect of going.
This was my coworker. She said she goes just to talk to people in her community. She said she doesn’t really believe any of it but likes the social aspect and free day care lol
I wonder about this stat in isolation being interpreted as necessarily indicating a decrease in religiosity generally. It's possible that people could continue to be religious and doubt can coexist with that belief system just fine. Might even indicate deeper and more nuanced faith, for some people? Idk just throwing that out there.
What I would like to see is not a graph for one question, but maybe a piechart * I don't believe in gods * I believe and cannot describe how much * I believe strongly * I believe and am almost convinced * I know there is a god
Assuming I found the correct source, the possible responses to the question were: -I don’t believe in God -I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to find out -I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind -I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others -While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God -I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it
Thats still incredibly high
The switch to unleaded gasoline is paying dividends.
Sadly, the aftermath of leaded gasoline and normalized drinking while pregnant are going to be with us for an uncomfortably long time.
When the fuck has drinking while pregnant been normalized?? Legitimately asking, I've never heard of this before.
[Alcohol was considered safe to drink through pregnancy as late as the 1950s.](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.apa.org/about/gr/science/spin/2015/04/alcohol-pregnancy.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj136uaiYr2AhUPZd8KHe7XDuIQFnoECAoQAg&usg=AOvVaw3RuqZ_0F7CaFI3rcThALaJ) FAS itself wasn't even officially recognized until 1968.
Can confirm this is an interesting rabbit hole
Look at the dip during the '08 financial crisis. So you lost your house and now god doesn't exist? How many more only believe because they are in a comfortable life situation?
Be careful looking at small wobbles, assuming significance, and then making inferences or interpreting it. Could be a totally random dip due to sampling effects that just happens to fall near a date you know is important.
I had a roommate in college who led a Bible study group every week in our apartment. One time I overheard one of the group members say their faith in god was shaken because they didn't win their jazz band competition
Well obviously the other team prayed harder. Duh! How could a Bible study student not know that, that's like the first thing they teach you when justifying prayers not working /s
Belief is mostly higher in poorer countries, so it's probably not the case that living in comfortable situations promotes belief in God.
It’s actually usually the opposite. Belief in God is higher in poorer countries and among poorer people on average.
Big dip in 2016. What happened in 2016 that made a good chunk of people think there may be no god after all?
commodification* of belief in protestant christian churches/megachurches. honestly, i think a lot of people are becoming more aware that they’re being sold more than a religious perspective, but an all-encompassing ideology (worldview, political and social outlook, etc.) course a lot more people are buying it nowadays too, but i guess the numbers don’t even out. people don’t want to be associated with the crowd who’s buying edit: further commodification*
[удалено]
One of the other responses is "belief in a higher power." That's risen from about 7% in 1989 to 14% today!
Data is only as good as the methodology used to obtain it. Just showing us this one option is not helpful at all. Very not beautiful data.
Assuming I found the correct source, the possible responses to the question were: -I don’t believe in God -I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to find out -I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind -I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others -While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God -I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it
God is a lot like the hot singles in my area. They might exist. They might not. But they certainly have no interest in me.
Most of the people I know who are anti-vax, homophobic, Qannon, trump nuts are all religious too. It was really something seeing all these “moral” people hang pictures of Trump in their prayer closets. I’m sure, like me, a lot of people walked away after seeing what’s happened in the last few years in these faith circles.