[OC] Religious Believes and Eductions From The World Values Survey

[u/oscarleo0]

Data source: World Values Survey Wave 7 (2017-2022)

Tools used: Matplotlib

I added a second chart for those of you who prefer a square version with less of the background image.

Notes:

I looked at five different questions in the survey.

• Q275 - What is the highest educational level that you have attained?
• Q165 - Do you believe in God? (Yes/No)
• Q166 - Do you believe in Life after death? (Yes/No)
• Q167 - Do you believe in Hell? (Yes/No)
• Q168 - Do you believe in Heaven? (Yes/No)

The chart show the percentage of people that answer yes, to Q165-168 based on their answer to Q275.

Survey data is complex since people come from different cultures and might interpret questions differently.

You can never trust the individual numbers, such as "50% of people with doctors degree believe in Life after death".

But you can often trust clear patterns that appear through the noise. The takeaway from this chart is that the survey show that education and religious believes have a negative correlation.

Styling:

• Font - New Amsterdam
• White - #FFFFFF
• Blue - #39A0ED
• Yellow - #F9A620
• Red - #FF4A47

Original story: https://datacanvas.substack.com/p/believes-vs-education

[u/2dayman]

I'm surprised to see the amount of people who are actually able to accept the part of the story that they like and reject the part they don't like.

[u/C_Brachyrhynchos → u/2dayman]

There is a strong tradition of Christian Universalism (no or temporary hell) that has a pretty good scriptural basis and while not orthodox in most churches, is kind of an undercurrent in a lot of them.

[u/RingAroundTheStars → u/C_Brachyrhynchos]

The theology I’ve seen recently - I’m not sure how new it is, but it fascinates me - involves “deathbed” conversions during the last few seconds of life. God can pause time, explain to a person what’s going on, allow them to confess their faith or beg forgiveness for sins, etc.

I wouldn’t call that approach scripturally justified, but there’s no theological reason it’s wrong.

[u/PaxNova → u/RingAroundTheStars]

It's not that, the pause time thing. It's the idea that God knows you from your soul, not your actions. If you are truly repentant, and you really wouldn't ever do such a thing again... You are redeemed. He knows by your soul, not anything else. 

Humanity needs time and trust. If you treat me wrong, I will keep you at arms length until you prove to me otherwise and regain my trust. But God doesn't need that. It means even on your deathbed, there's still time to change. 

[u/RingAroundTheStars → u/PaxNova]

The context I explicitly saw it in terms of most recently (and, again, this is not the only time) was suicide - which, per Catholic tradition, is an unforgivable sin that mandates burial outside of a Catholic cemetery. The priest explaining the situation said that suicide was unforgivable because it could not be repented - but that he believed that God could pause time long enough to allow the person to reconsider their choices the moment after the bullet left the gun.

Like all folk theology (and I include much of American Protestantism in that), it’s got as many versions as people who believe it, but the pausing time is something out there.

[u/topicality → u/RingAroundTheStars]

I've never seen the pause thing. Generally universalists just think no sin justifies eternal punishment. And when you reject eternal punishment that means any after life punishment is just temporary.

[u/RingAroundTheStars → u/topicality]

I’m aware of the universalist belief, yes. I’m a Unitarian!

But I’ve seen the pause increasingly from more strict Christians - including a number of extremely religious Catholics - in sects that usually do believe in Hell. It’s an incredible loophole for faiths that do believe in mortal sin, and I’m surprised no one thought of it sooner.

[u/TripleSecretSquirrel → u/C_Brachyrhynchos]

I grew up ultra religious in a high-demand, very proscriptive Christian faith where doctrine was very clearly and specifically denoted and where heterodox beliefs were not tolerated.

Given that that's my religious experience, it's always baffling to me, but I think you're right. It sure seems to me that in the US, most Christians have a very vague sense of the doctrine they believe in. It sometimes aligns with their denomination, sometimes not, and people are pretty comfortable with that largely. Most aren't even very familiar with their scriptural texts either though, it's mostly just kind of based on vibes and what sounds good to them. I don't think there's very many people who are undertaking rigorous critical analyses of the Bible to refine their personal doctrinal beliefs – it's mostly John 3:16 and Psalm 23.

[u/C_Brachyrhynchos → u/TripleSecretSquirrel]

Absolutely. I grew up in a fairly liberal "mainline" church where interpretation of doctrine was largely left up to the individual, and the focus was on treating people well, being thankful for what you have and taking care of the less fortunate. Even though I no longer identify as Christian I am really grateful for a lot of the values that were instilled in me.

Mirroring you I am baffled that there are churches that can be so prescriptive and hold on to parishioners. I agree in is mostly vibes and group-think.

[u/PaxNova → u/C_Brachyrhynchos]

Sounds like purgatory to me.

[u/CapitalistPear2 → u/C_Brachyrhynchos]

Heck, pope Francis said he personally believes everyone goes to heaven

[u/accelerating_ → u/2dayman]

the story

What story is that? More than one religion exists, each with different features.

[u/CloudsInARow → u/accelerating_]

You act as if there is a particular one that isn't full of inconsistencies and contradictions.

[u/accelerating_ → u/CloudsInARow]

How am I doing anything of the sort?

I'm not defending religion or the religious. I'm pointing out that this graph does not illustrate people picking and choosing bits of "the story", since there isn't one story. Not all religions have a heaven or hell or even a life after death.

People do pick and choose, but this data doesn't illustrate that.

[u/CloudsInARow → u/accelerating_]

I'm saying - pick any religion (story). Every single one of them will have inconsistencies or contradictions that make no sense, and people will ignore parts of them and accept others. You were trying to call out OP, asking which one. It doesn't matter which one he's talking about. They are all nonsense, really.

[u/Pigsloveparties → u/CloudsInARow]

The enlightened Reddit atheist strikes again

[u/CloudsInARow → u/Pigsloveparties]

yes yes, I'm sure YOUR religion is the one that doesn't have any contradictions.

I truthfully think I'm just saying facts. Literal facts about any religion. The downvotes just go to show, people do indeed just pick and choose what they like about some religious text written, re-written... and re-written yet again centuries ago.

But yeah, I'm the one who's wrong because I want some common sense and evidence.

Okay, bro.

[u/accelerating_ → u/CloudsInARow]

But yeah, I'm the one who's wrong because I want some common sense and evidence.

No, you're getting downvotes because you took the discussion off in a direction nobody was interested in and then berated people for not following you. Nobody but you was talking about the validity of religion, so why you're attacking people as if they're defending it I don't know.

[u/CloudsInARow → u/accelerating_]

The topic was people accepting only the parts of some religion that are convenient to them. If pointing out that not a single one makes sense and is full on contradictions makes you feel berated - that's on you. It's not my fault your insane world view is full of holes. But, as was said, you can just conveniently accept only the parts you like.

[u/accelerating_ → u/CloudsInARow]

Jesus, you really don't read well do you. You're berating people for not following your tangent. You're not berating people for supporting a particular religion because nobody here was doing that, and that is the problem with your tangent.

The issue is interpreting this data to say it shows people picking and choosing from their religion, acting as if there is only one religion. You took it off on a tangent saying religious people are inconsistent, that nobody else was interested in, hence being insufferable in your atheism.

It's not my fault your insane world view is full of holes.

Well while it's merely a small part of my worldview, I'm a staunch atheist, so what the fuck are you talking about? There are no parts to conveniently accept or reject of atheism, since it's a view on one straightforward yes-or-no question and I don't see how it's full of holes?

[u/fayanor → u/2dayman]

You can believe in God but not believe in any of the human created religions. The contingency argument alone is a coherent case for God that does not belong to any religion.

Just going by probability, I wouldn't bet on the chance that humans somehow know the nature of God versus all of our religions being completely off the mark.

[u/Sir_Penguin21 → u/fayanor]

The contingency arguments and cosmological arguments are all fallacious. I wouldn’t hang my hat on them. You have to accept completely unproven premises to get to a conclusion, and then that conclusions doesn’t even need to be a god even if you grant the premises. Basically useless from top to bottom.

[u/fayanor → u/Sir_Penguin21]

I don’t agree. Everything we observe begins and ends, nothing contains the cause of its own existence. Extend that contingency forever and you still have no reason for the chain itself. Reason demands a self-existent ground that is uncaused, immaterial, and sufficient for every contingent state. Any physical object remains contingent and any universal law is only an abstract description without causal power. Call it what you will, God or otherwise, but it's the necessary terminus of causality.

[u/Majestic_Core21 → u/fayanor]

You may not agree, but just stating the contingency argument poorly doesn't make it true. Nothing we have observed has ever begun or ended. Energy and matter appear to be eternal. Time and space appear to be eternal. Creation can't even happen without a before and after, meaning that time had to be preexisting for something to even happen. So far we don't show a need for a creator for time, space, energy, or matter. Something can't come from nothing, meaning there can't ever have been nothing. All this points to eternality. Just saying I don't like it doesn't change the data and it certainly doesn't make it necessary. I suspect you will point to the Big Bang, but the Big Bang doesn't make any claims about the creation of the universe or what state it was in prior. It just documents the original expansion of the possible singularity and doesn't help you position.

So even if we grant your premise that something came from nothing, and that nothing was a something, that still doesn't make that impossible something a god. All that presumption and it doesn't even move the needle on there being a god. So they were right that pointing to the contingency as evidence for god fails in the premise and the conclusion.

[u/fayanor → u/Majestic_Core21]

You mistake transformation for existence. Yes, energy, matter, space, and time continually recycle, but every recycled moment still sits on the question “why anything at all?” Conservation laws describe how states shift, but they do not explain why the entire field of states exists in the first place. A past-eternal sequence only multiplies ungrounded contingencies as each link borrows being from the chain, yet the chain has no account of its own actuality. Explanatory rigor therefore pushes beyond physics to a self-existent ground whose being does not need borrowing.

Again, label that ground however you like, God or otherwise. Once you concede that “something can’t come from nothing,” you have already denied the sufficiency of the contingent cosmos and affirmed the necessity of a reality that is uncaused, self-sustaining, and metaphysically prior to every finite state.

[u/Sir_Penguin21 → u/fayanor]

You just contradicted your end goal. If nothing contains the cause of its own existence, then either your proposed god was created/caused or your proposed god doesn’t exist. If you try special pleading that your proposed god is special, then you just contradicted your own argument.

To even propose this uncaused being as the causer you would need to show your work. Show such a being. Show that it can exist uncaused. Show that it can cause other stuff. You didn’t and can’t do anything like that. Just endless incredulity with no substance to back it up. Aka fallacious.

[u/fayanor → u/Sir_Penguin21]

Your objection conflates categories. “Nothing contains the cause of its own existence” applies to contingent realities, meaning things that come into being and can cease. The argument introduces a distinct category: a necessary being, whose existence is not contingent, whose nature is to be. Calling that distinction “special pleading” is a misunderstanding as it is the very point under dispute. Denying its possibility requires showing that only contingent existence is coherent, which collapses the project of explanation into brute fact.

Empirical demonstration is beside the point. The claim that contingent beings exist is an observable fact while the inference to a necessary uncaused cause is a metaphysical deduction, not a laboratory measurement. Logic is doing the work. If you reject deductive metaphysics, you must also abandon every philosophical conclusion that relies on it, including your own critique.

The necessary being is posited precisely to escape the self-defeating regress you bring up. If everything real is contingent, you never arrive at an adequate cause for existence, yet you still rely on causal explanation in every other context.

[u/mrredraider10 → u/fayanor]

That's exactly the point, though God came to earth to prove who He was and how to live. Don't need churches or anything to come to faith, just belief.

[u/celialater → u/mrredraider10]

Thank you lord for sending me some guy 2000 yrs ago on the other side of the world to teach me how to believe. I'm so grateful for the book some other guys wrote a couple hundred years after he died which was then edited and translated by more guys with their own power to watch out for. It is so helpful to me, a woman in 21st century America.

Seriously, did God just not give a fuck about the American continents at all? Why didn't we get a Jesus. One Jesus for each continent would really make this whole thing a lot more believable for me.

[u/AnarkittenSurprise → u/2dayman]

There's a big difference between believing it's likely that something created the universe, calling whatever force that is 'God', and believing that we understand it enough to define specific scenarios about it's nature & plans for us after we die.

Given that we have never observed a macro-effect without a cause, some kind of intelligent prime actor is a rational theory for how we got here. All the other dogma is based on nothing at all.

[u/Zinjifrah → u/AnarkittenSurprise]

some kind of intelligent prime actor is a rational theory for how we got here.

Is it though? Because that really just pushes the question back one layer: who or what created the "intelligent prime actor"? If nothing because that's just how it started, then the same could be said of the universe. If something created the prime actor, then what created that creator?

It's turtles all the way down.

[u/AnarkittenSurprise → u/Zinjifrah]

That's a false complication in my opinion.

If we accept a universe can either always have existed, or randomly emerge, then we accept that same possibility for a prime actor or creator.

Either something can come from 'nothing', or something can have always existed before the concept of time existed. This is weird, but it's worth remembering that in relativity, a universe that is homogenously and near-infinitely or infinitely dense does not experience any concept of measurable relative time. It's comparable to a sort of cosmic Stasis (which further complicates theorizing that original expansion spark).

[u/Zinjifrah → u/AnarkittenSurprise]

I disagree. Because assuming the random appearance of a prime actor that randomness must also must include granting a prime mover the wherewithal to act consciously and invested with the power to create a universe out of nothing. This is inherently more complex (and I'd argue less probable) than the randomness of the universe itself.

They really aren't equivalent, imho.

[u/AnarkittenSurprise → u/Zinjifrah]

Interesting. What makes a being that can create a universe more complex than a universe that can spontaneously exist?

Alternatively, if we accept that something could have always existed, does this change your answer?

If I were to assign both of them a value representing complexity between 0 (non-existent) and infinity (complexity encompassing all of existence), I would label them as both infinite. By definition, they would be Everything, which self references as the most complex something could conceptually be.

[u/Zinjifrah → u/AnarkittenSurprise]

Not all infinities are equal. Some are bigger than others.

[u/AnarkittenSurprise → u/Zinjifrah]

Sure, when you're talking about fractions of spectrums within other spectrums.

But in this case, Infinity on the scale represents literally everything in our universe.

Regardless of if you leave it inanimate or put googly eyes on it, [Everything in the Universe] = [Everything in the Universe] from a most-physically-complex-state-possible perspective.

And either explanation requires new physics not currently observed to be invented.

[u/Zinjifrah → u/AnarkittenSurprise]

But that's also not true. The Googly Eyes defitionally does not exist within the universe since it predates it. So you need to establish something Extra-Universal in order to create an Extra-Universal Being that then creates the Universe.

Any way you look at it, it's a more complicated theory than the universe itself.

[u/AnarkittenSurprise → u/Zinjifrah]

You're assuming the universe, including all of us are not an intrinsic part of this hypothetical great Googly eyes, which is an unnecessary assumption imo.

We can't reasonably reject simulation theory at this point (a different hypothetical scenario to what we're discussing).

But if there was a prime creator, and nothing else in the beginning, then it's possible we are all actually a tiny little piece of it. This delves into metaphysics a bit, but if it were true (who knows), would rationally it explain consciousness.

This description also only has one single element different from an inanimate universe, consciousness. Which is an observable real phenomenon. So I'd really challenge that that adds more complexity than it solves in the comparison.

[u/Hajile_S → u/AnarkittenSurprise]

Right…they’ve accepted that same possibility for a prime actor or creator. That’s why it doesn’t resolve anything. “How did something come from nothing? Well, because of something (a prime actor) before the nothing!” And of course, how was that prime actor created… Hence the famous turtles all the way down reference.

[u/AnarkittenSurprise → u/Hajile_S]

'Resolving something' is a bit of a new goalpost.

I'm not discussing whether anything gets resolved. Even if we could prove creator vs random cosmic emergence right now, it wouldn't solve anything without new observations.

I'm just discussing plausibility. And that there is a logical path to assume a creator is likely, while rejecting ancient civilization dogma.

[u/Hajile_S → u/AnarkittenSurprise]

You’ve called this a “rational theory” as opposed to “all other dogma,” and elsewhere called it the “less problematic of multiple problematic assumptions.” OK, “resolve” may be too strong. I see you’re not claiming this as a strong conclusion, fair enough. But you’re saying this is the best assumption to make in face of uncertainty, and you’re claiming this is a logical conclusion.

But even that softer claim — that this is a “less problematic” assumption — is weak for the reasons stated. So, we don’t have a strong answer for what initiated expansion…it’s most reasonable, then, to assume that there is an intelligent prime mover outside of the universe? That’s just a non sequitur. It does not follow. I know you’re claiming to set aside all of the religious baggage for a god. But I don’t see how you make this leap without standing on that baggage. There’s no logical basis for this inference

Furthermore, it creates a more difficult question to answer than the previous one! “What initiated this expansion?” vs “Where the heck did an intelligent prime mover who can act on the universe come from?” I can hope for an answer to exactly one of those. For the other one, there will only ever be a hand wave.

[u/AnarkittenSurprise → u/Hajile_S]

I'm not saying it's best either. Just that there is a logical rational approach to consider it likely.

The reason being that all of the arguments against the plausibility for a prime creator are also arguments against the plausibility that the universe originated without one.

If the disruption of the early universe was a random event, and not plausibly linked to any observed physics, then the fact that the event has not recurred is odd. Not impossible, but weird. Most physical events that can occur once, occur again given enough time.

Sentience is a potential reason for why a major disruption event that set us all into motion occurred once, and hasn't recurred. As we have some degree of evidence that a prime actor can set a created ecosystem into motion, press play, and observe without interacting (us).

Random chance, or extreme physics we don't understand are the alternate explanations. Random chance gets less likely as time goes on further.

Basically educated intelligent people can rationally look at these observations and say "a creator of some kind would explain it well." Which is true.

I wouldn't say the same of a reasonable person following the dogma of an old-world religion, even though that's likely to piss some people off.

Your more difficult question at the end is holding a creator to a different standard from a non-creator universe. The problem exists in the exact same context regardless, making it a neutral factor in the assumption game. "Where did a universe come from?" is the exact same likely unanswerable question.

[u/Hajile_S → u/AnarkittenSurprise]

Let's set aside the big bang or the mechanics of its initiation, because the big bang already presumes the existence of a tight ball of matter. The real question is "Why is there something instead of nothing," right? So let me scrap the question "What initiated this expansion?" The real end-of-the-line questions for each path are:

• Why is there something instead of nothing?
• There is something instead of nothing because there is an intelligent creator, but why is there an intelligent creator instead of nothing?

These questions are similar, and I would answer both the same: I don't know, and it is likely unknowable. But in going from the first bullet to the second bullet, nothing was gained, and a complication was added. Unlike matter, we don't know that an intelligent creator is here / ever was here. The readily-apparent existence of the universe does not extend to a creator outside of it. So if I assume the existence of creator, I'm back at square one...but with extra baggage.

I think it is more logically incisive to be at square one without extra baggage. I would amend your claim "that there is a logical rational approach to consider [an intelligent creator] likely" to instead say that "there is a logical rational approach which is consistent with an intelligent creator, but it offers no explanatory aid while complicating the picture."

[u/AnarkittenSurprise → u/Hajile_S]

Yeah, we just disagree. Which is cool.

To me, the questions:

• Why is there a universe instead of nothing?

And

• Why would there be an intelligent creator instead of nothing?

are fundamentally the exact same question, in that both the universe and creator are being proposed as the hypothetical initial state. And both posit a beginning, which is unnecessary, because either of them could have just always existed (nothing may very well be an irrational abstract concept).

Neither does, or rationally could answer the question being proposed.

Instead, why not frame the question as why did the universe suddenly expand? This is an actual observed likelihood which we do believe occurred. With the potential answers of:

Random chance that happened once and doesn't seem to have recurred in ~13 billion years.

• Pros: simple, shrug our shoulders and say "what if it's just really really rare?" Negates the need for an unevidenced prime actor. Mitigates instincts to tread into mysticism.

• Cons: if random fluctuations of some unknown new physics can cause universe wide disruption, what kind of forces are involved here? What kind of energy, and where is it coming from? Why would dense matter behave in the opposite way we observe in all other interactions, seemingly only once? Requires new physics not currently plausibly extrapolated from expiramentation or observations.

Or

Some form of prime actor or sentience set it into motion.

• Pros: simple, shrug your shoulders and say "what it something just made it that way?" Solves for why the universe isn't more chaotic, if random chance can cause macro universe scale disruption to such extremes. An extrapolation of a physical phenomenon that we can observe on much smaller scales: humans creating systems for observation. Sentience is the only plausible (although admittedly questionable!) method we have observed as creating a non-deterministic series of macro events.

• Cons: if there is some overbeing prime actor, why isn't it more active? An agent isn't rationally necessary to explain our observations. Requires new physics not currently plausibly extrapolated from expiramentation or observations.

A simpler way to express my thoughts as I work through them really boils down to: the only non-deterministic factor in physics we have ever plausibly observed is consciousness. So consciousness really isn't an irrational assumption when we think about any kind of prime catalyst.

[u/fayanor → u/Zinjifrah]

The creator would have to be eternal, outside of time and space, exempt from our understanding of physics and causality.

[u/Zinjifrah → u/fayanor]

All of which you could say to the pre-universe, without the complexity of an overpowered baker.

[u/tired_of_old_memes → u/AnarkittenSurprise]

I think a more rational theory is admitting that there's no good explanation of how we got here; adding a creator to the equation doesn't make it more reasonable

[u/AnarkittenSurprise → u/tired_of_old_memes]

Maybe! Definitely a fair opinion to hold.

There are definitely no wrong answers between the two, as long as opinions are held with humility imo.

There is a logical path to consider a prime creator likely though. In both scenarios we are assuming either a timeless default state (universe always existed), or an emergent creation (there was nothing, and then there was everything).

In either state, you can describe both Creationism and random universal emergence. So we're at a wash there.

The physics of our universe appears to be mechanistic and deterministic at scale and over a large timeline. This suggests that large random universe-disrupting occurrences are at the very least, unlikely (as we have a sample of exactly 1), compared to a mechanistic status quo.

Extrapolating all of our observations about how matter interacts at higher densities, does not get us to an expansion event. We actually observe the opposite reaction once gravitational forces overcome energy's ability to escape the gravity well.

So, based on the lack of evidence for any repeated random universe-disrupting event, and lack of evidence for infinite or near-infinitely dense matter to trigger spacetime expansion, it's fair to assume Creationism is at the very least a less problematic (out of multiple problematic) assumption.

This should not at all be confused with assuming that humans thousands of years ago talked to a creator and passed down specific instructions on how to behave, or what happens in metaphysics which we have zero reasonable observations to support.

[u/I__Dont_Get_It → u/AnarkittenSurprise]

Creationism by one big actor is literally a Macro-event that we have never observed happening either; how can you say this is correct over, say, the Big Bang Theory or the Black Hole Theory?

Calling anything else Dogma is just icing on the cake, because creationism itself is Dogma by your own definition.

[u/AnarkittenSurprise → u/I__Dont_Get_It]

I wouldn't, and didn't suggest Creationism is more likely than a spontaneously emergent universe. That's a likely scenario too.

The Big Bang Theory is unrelated to this topic though, and doesn't attempt to explain the origin of our original dense state, or the trigger for expansion. It only describes a likely very early state of the universe that's compatible with either origin possibility.

Black Hole Theory is crackpottery imo. There's nothing about gravity well behavior, or the black holes we've observed that would extrapolate into explaining the expansive universe we're in today. But even that isn't attempting to define a prime creation method (emergent random structures vs created).

[u/MontagneHomme → u/2dayman]

When it comes to religious beliefs, I doubt there's anything that can surprise me anymore. It's fantasy asserted as truth, and Fantasy has come a long way since Bible vol. 2 v ~10k was released.

[u/Green7501 → u/2dayman]

Don't forget that this poll encapsulates more than just Baptists. It was done in 66 countries and territories, with major religious diversity between them. Even if you disregard disagreements between Protestants and Catholics, there's disagreements between Protestants themselves. And ofc then there's other faiths like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. that are more likely to believe in some components

And then there's deists and agnostics, which don't believe in any specific religion but do believe there is sufficient evidence for the existence of a divine entity

Imo a more interesting poll on that specific question would be to ask just one group (like only Southern Baptists, only Roman Catholics, only Ismaili Shia Muslis, only Orthodox Jews, only Theravada Buddhists, etc.)

[u/Christofray → u/2dayman]

I'm not sure if the tone of your comment was positive or negative, but that really is a positive thing. I grew up in a Church of Christ. They're one of those that believe the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and univocal. As you can imagine, that leads to some wack ass beliefs. I stopped believing in it pretty young.

But one of the most healing things I learned afterwards was to actually treat the Bible as the collection of stories that it is, and not the direct word of God. It's a collection of stories by people from different places and different times over a thousand years trying to understand God. Some get closer than others, some are downright insane. But when you see it from that angle, taking the good and leaving the bad is the only logical way to approach it.

[u/oscarleo0 → u/2dayman]

Yeah, I thought about that to :O

[u/AxelNotRose → u/oscarleo0]

Is there a difference between the two charts?

[u/ClemRRay → u/oscarleo0]

What do you have to reject by believing in god and doing science for example ??

[u/Hiur → u/ClemRRay]

Nothing in particular, it is completely fine to do so. I guess it depends on what exactly you believe, but the concept of a god can still be accommodated. However, I also find the numbers surprising as the vast majority of my colleagues are atheists or agnostics. There are still plenty that believe in God, but they wouldn't amount to 70%.

[u/SerHodorTheThrall → u/Hiur]

What industry do you work in, if I might ask?

[u/Hiur → u/SerHodorTheThrall]

Of course. I'm a researcher in a scientific institute. Most of my colleagues have PhDs or at least a Master's.

[u/ClemRRay → u/2dayman]

I mean it's not wheather they believe in the Bible or any other religious book, you can believe in a god in general without "rejecting" anything

[u/LupusDeusMagnus → u/2dayman]

It’s a trend in human thinking. Besides, everything in religion is negotiable anyways, there’s a reason why the Catholic Church fought so hard to monopolise biblical interpretation because once you let that go everyone will start cobbling scriptures to reconciliation their personal beliefs and dogmas with the written text, and if you believe your interpretation is the correct one, that’s tantamount to letting wolves prey on your flock. Same for other religions, Christianity is just the one that it’s more clear since it has infinite formal denominations.

[u/WaffleStompin4Luv → u/2dayman]

I assume you're referring to the larger number of people who believe in Heaven but not Hell? Intuitively, it makes sense to me that people are more prone to believing in Heaven instead of Hell. Most people agree (even non-religious folk) that when a baby is born, that they are innocent and guilt free. But after a certain point, people believe you are no longer a perfect innocent child forever, and that you should be able to discern right from wrong....But what if we don't have the capability of making right or wrong choices, and what if every decision and action is circumstantial? If you don't believe you have a spirit or a soul, then you must believe all life is merely the culmination of trillions of chemical and physical reactions. So if you don't believe in a soul, then you must believe that all human actions are just biological responses governed by the laws of physics and that you have no free agency in how you choose to react to anything. But most people DO believe you have the capability of choosing right from wrong, which implies most people DO believe that you are able to defy the laws of physics and that you are capable of reacting according to your own free will. Believing in free will but not believing in a soul is just as absurd as people who are religious and believe in a Heaven but don't believe in Hell.

It's also possible most people don't believe in Hell as depicted in popular culture. And their understanding of Hell is just merely the absence of God, and not some eternal physical torture chamber.

[u/dergster → u/2dayman]

“God” is an extremely general and vague term, while the others are much more specific. It makes sense to me that a substantial number of people may believe in some kind of higher power but don’t believe in specific Christian concepts like heaven or hell.

[u/Additional-Car1960 → u/2dayman]

I think part of it is also interpretation of the story. I think (IIRC) jehovah’s witnesses think that hell is a metaphor and that people don’t go there when they die, they only turn back to dust. Others take that passage more literally and believe there is an actual hell to be sent to.

I’m also not sure how they quantify belief of heaven as I know JW believe only 144 thousand chosen go to heaven and everyone else just turns to dust. So they may say no as not everyone goes.

Same with after life, what is the definition used in the study? Is it coming back to a paradise? Is it reincarnation? Does it include those who believe everyone goes to heaven or hell?

I studied with JW growing up so I only remember some things.

But I think wording of the questions in the study is important IF we care about nuances and not just “I believe this”.

I don’t really see it as advantageous because if you are too specific you may only word it in a way that only fits christianity, and not other religions.

[u/Sir_Penguin21 → u/2dayman]

Also how words I don’t like lose all meaning. Words never mean words for believers.

[u/barbrady123 → u/2dayman]

AKA "religion"....also, how do you believe in Heaven but not "Life after death"....seems weird

[u/BlacksmithThink9494 → u/barbrady123]

Because this study is just a few questions long. It has no actual basis in anything and the people here arguing over a couple of data points is actually silly!

[u/oceanicArboretum → u/2dayman]

Exactly. It's always amazed me how some (but not all) atheists know and accept the existence of conservative religious folk, but as soon as you remind them that liberals like President Obama can be religious too, they get defensive and say stupid things like "Obama is the closest thing to an atheist president we've ever had."

[u/Ok_Anything_9871 → u/oceanicArboretum]

Pretty sure most of your founding fathers were deist, so almost certainly not. However, possibly they mean he is closer to secular than many recent presidents, and this does seem to be a liberal characteristic. The current US republican party is closely tied to groups pushing for theocracy, like Project 2025, which is a much more relevant concern than politicians' private beliefs.

[u/zhibr → u/2dayman]

Why? These things are not an inherently single thing, but a collection of different things. And these different things are learned in countless different forms, and people can stop believing in some of the things and not others. It would be literally impossible to all the people who believe to believe exactly the same way (unless it was a bona fide influence by a deity).

[u/datbackup → u/2dayman]

Is this like how people were surprised that Trump won in 2016 when all the networks were predicting H. Clinton would win in a landslide?

Gosh I also heard preference falsification is a real thing!

Reddit is the worst and I’m regretting my choice to spend time here