Are you a Sunday Stalwart? Solidly Secular? Or somewhere in between? (Pew Research Center quiz)

I didn't really need to take this intensive, highly-scientific quiz to confirm my status as an unrepentant heathen but I did anyway.

i guess i'm most interested in the likely ilx divide between 'religion resister' and 'solidly secular'. apparently i'm the latter.

before anyone mentions it - yes, this is based on a 'nationally representative survey of more than 4,000 U.S. adults.' 4000. wow!!

I'm a solid secular, apparently. I did say that meditation and nature were alright, though I don't understand the significance of the nature question. Is enjoyment of nature predictive of your spiritual beliefs?

I'm a solid secular, apparently. I did say that meditation and nature were alright, though I don't understand the significance of the nature question. Is enjoyment of nature predictive of your spiritual beliefs?

http://www.preposity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/searle_03.jpg

Your best fit is...
Spiritually Awake
along with 15% of the public.

I'm allegedly Solidly Secular but I don't think this quiz understand how Judaism works

Seems to be aimed at Christians tbf. I believe you still have those in the USA.

anyway Pew does neat work I might read the report at some point

Seems to be aimed at Christians tbf.

yeah, and I found this quite annoying. nonetheless, I got a "Sunday Stalwart" - which of course in and of itself is a Christian formulation because only Xtians give a fuck about Sundays

I dunno, man, I'm pretty down with that whole 'day of rest' thing.

the sabbath is friday evening - saturday evening

Relaxed Religious, apparantly

I'm not quite sure I get what 'Diversely Devout' means.

it's kinda like polyamory

I got twisted resister

so basically, you're not gonna take it?

I am. I'm me.

:)

I quit church after i had to shake hands at Mass with Andrew Sullivan (not a joke)

before that i went to a gay congregation in NYC that included a number of priests and their male partners, so i guess that's Diversely Devout

I got "God-and-Country Believer" which seems lol to me because I said that churches do more harm than good to America

the idea that ignorant literalism is the purest sort of religious faith should always be challenged

The multiple iterations of 'Yes, believe in' sprinkled throughout this poll had me in stitches.

I like 'Not too religious'

Seems to be aimed at Christians tbf.

Predictable. Even though there are tons of non-Christian religious people in the USA, a good 90% of the population is blind to the existence of anything but Christianity, either as a participant or an opponent.

I'm reading the Bible right now, currently at the Book of Kings, and it's so obviously nothing more than political propaganda meant to prop up one dynasty over another. The story of David is almost funny in it's implausibility, especially the way that his enemies are constantly assassinated by people totally against his will. And oh yeah, he was actually allied with the Philistines against Saul, but... They totally didn't trust him so he never participated in any battles that killed Israelis.

solidly secular, though I wouldn't really call it that. the closest approximation to my religious views for about 15 years now has been "there's probably a hell and I'm probably going there, and even if there isn't a hell losing consciousness is even worse of a thought"

I got "God-and-Country Believer" which seems lol to me because I said that churches do more harm than good to America

the Xtian bias in this question also totally bothered me. There was no middle option like, "It's a mix!" Just Yes, No, no difference. Ultimately I voted the opposite - just trying to be optimistic that there are more little mosques/temples/synagogues/churches actually doing the "Lord's work" of feeding the poor and comforting the sick than there are megachurches and child molestation markets. Could be totally wrong about that obviously.

i paused longer on that question than any other.

initially, i selected the "good" option, but later i went back and revised to "more harm".

good: provide millions of people with hope and community. charity work.
bad: some churches decided to try to take over american politics, and they partially succeeded. some churches purposefully created a generation of single-issue (abortion) voters, which has warped politics and also the individual minds of so many people.

do the terrible churches and their constituents do more harm to america than all of the good ones? still not sure. churches that are forces of good outweigh the bad ones in quantity, i think, but the evil ones might outweigh them in terms of their overall affect on the country

spiritually awake

spiritually awake

spiritually awake

derp sorry

spiritually awake, the straight to dvd sequel to beetlejuice

How much meaning and fulfillment, if any, do spiritual practices, such as meditation, provide you?

meditation is not a spiritual practice

not all would agree
C/D: "I'm not religious but I am spiritual."

i get that it comes from a spiritual tradition but it doesn't have to be attached to that at all, and i really hate how anything a step or two above eating, shitting and sleeping in the category of caring for oneself as a living being gets labeled as "spiritual"

solidly secular. i figured almost everyone itt would be too, very interesting. i don't even consider myself to be staunchly atheist (which is how I would describe my wife's views) but I still feel closer to believing there is no higher power than there is one.

yeah, I don't consider myself an atheist but an agnostic, in the sense that I have no idea what the hell is going to happen when I die but none of the options seem appealing

life is incredibly weird, contradictory, multivalent, complex, etc. and turning towards spiritual explanations for existence, which are always historical/social constructs, is a way to avoid facing life's full, always-unfolding mystery, exactly because those ideas claim to be above it.

well, sure, in a broad sense, but it can all be distilled down to the fact that the thought of losing consciousness forever is terrifying and impossible for the mind to process so they come up with something, anything, not to have to do it

or else there's a god and I'm going to hell for saying that

haha. it's kind of a mystery to me why people are so terrified of it tbh. i mean i'm scared of losing consciousness too but not enough to invent a bunch of bullshit because of it.

religion resister, i like mountains

some nights I can hardly sleep from fear of relinquishing consciousness

Needs an option beyond "solidly secular" like "actively hostile to religion."

the thought of being conscious forever is much worse than death

it's not a great thought, particularly with the world getting worse and global warming being a thing that exists, but at least I can conceptualize what it will be like to be conscious for it

whereas it's not possible to conceptualize the alternative. "oh, it's like sleeping" -- we don't experience sleep, we experience waking up, which won't happen. we experience dreams, which also don't happen without a conscious mind.

There is no way all of this is just atoms smashing together

I imagine when we're dead we'll feel pretty much like we felt before we were born

iirc that wasn't so bad

solidly secular obv

xp i mean before we were conceived, not referring to sensations in the womb

the idea that ignorant literalism is the purest sort of religious faith should always be challenged

otm. maimonides points out something that should be obvious. do you know how we know the bible isn't literal? bc it talks about god's hands. god doesn't have hands bc he's not corporeal. so we know the bible talks in metaphor and therefore dot dot dot. ppl who are textual literalists are traditionally incoherent.

also i got sunday stalwart and like shakes i say fuck that sunday is a hero to most but doesn't mean

xp those conceptions predate me, I am just hosting them for a while

how do we know god doesnt have hands

a line I've heard from some p well-informed clergy is that belief as a sort of truth-claim is a fairly recent invention and is at least somewhat incommensurable with how 'believe' (& its equivs in other languages) was used back in the day (i.e. the "i believe in you" sense is older). i am inclined to believe something similar wrt sincerity but i cba looking into it

(xp) He has legs, according to Alan Partridge. Gas legs.

xxp well i do know christians have a problem w/ that idea too iirc

well Reb Yeshuah had hands, anyway

where I grew up the bar was not just "believe" the bar was "believe and have a personal relationship with." and supposedly if you just asked, the latter would happen. spoilers: I did ask, and it didn't happen

(this would have been in my teens)

I suppose "believe and have a personal relationship with" is closer to the original meaning, as in, trust in god, some degree of selflessness

[I imagine when we're dead we'll feel pretty much like we felt before we were born

hey this is MY line

xp in monotheistic religions that is imo absolutely colored with "have no other gods" - not sure about the role of "belief" in non-monotheistic faiths

Y’all explaining this quiz to each other and complaining about its obvious Christian bias? It’s a multiple choice test! Pick the best answer, not the right answer, is what I’m trying to say.

I’m solidly secular and kinda disappointed that it didn’t have follow-on questions like “is this all just atoms bouncing around” (yes) or “is free will a thing” (almost definitely not) because I bet less than 17% are with me there

“is free will a thing” (almost definitely not)

argh the ILX poll on this question drove me *nuts* (and I agree w you, btw)

xp yeah but there have been so many instances in which nominally monotheistic religions have been lax abt ppl worshipping, paying tribute to or otherwise focusing on particular subdivisions, incarnations etc. of god not to mention spirits of animals & ancestors, idols, saints and so on that i find the exclusivity claims hard to take too seriously

or “is free will a thing” (almost definitely not) because I bet less than 17% are with me there

― Paleo Weltschmerz (El Tomboto), Tuesday, September 4, 2018 5:36 PM (eleven minutes ago)

This is the worst. Free will is a thing

yeah, an imaginary thing

oh yeah this is the stuff

Free will’s fake but so what is how I break it down to an extent

I'm with Tombot, generally, but I hate the formulation of "just atoms." Atoms can be pretty amazing. I'm drinking some wine rn that I'm pretty sure is just a bunch of atoms, and it is really delicious.

Thing 1: I have no problem with imagining that nature (given eons of time and oceans of material) can come up with extraordinary things, up to and including me, Emmylou Harris, Curtis Mayfield, giant redwoods, and the 1982 St. Louis Cardinals.

Thing 2: But even if I HAD a problem imagining it, that wouldn't make any difference in terms of what is and is not true. The universe doesn't give a shit about whether people comprehend it or not.

If the ultimate nature of the universe is arrayed in a certain way - higher power or no - our ability to comprehend / imagine / believe it is pretty irrelevant in terms of its being that way. For all we know, the universe could all be run by sentient lint-balls that live in Wisconsin and crave Fanta. Unsurprisingly, I hold to a rather hardassed form of agnosticism.

People are weak but weak wills are still free wills

Will Smith vs. Will Forte vs. Wil Wheaton FITE

Pure materialism runs so far against the grain of our phenomenological experience that it just becomes goofy

yeah it's goofy! What good philosophical theory isn't goofy?

the one that posits a carrot has a soul

I used to me more of a hardcore materialist and hard determinist but lately I don't think those are that interesting; instead I spend all my time inveighing against all forms of consequentialist ethics.

Virtue ethics and deontological ethics are the ones I like, just don’t ask me to ground them. Existentialism is preferable to determinism because at least there is freedom in the void.

otm. maimonides points out something that should be obvious. do you know how we know the bible isn't literal? bc it talks about god's hands. god doesn't have hands bc he's not corporeal. so we know the bible talks in metaphor and therefore dot dot dot. ppl who are textual literalists are traditionally incoherent.

― Mordy, 4. september 2018 23:12 (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Or it could be that different parts of the bible were written by different people, and it's not so much metaphorical as it is incoherent and contradictory.

Oh yeah this is the stuff

free will is not a thing

sike i chose to type that

xxxp textual literalists believe that the entire bible is coherent + true so i'm not that's as exculpatory as u imagine

Oh, I have no wish to excuse textual literalists :)

lol dmac

pi is 3

i appreciate this is marginally less useless than most surveys of religious belief but i think its worth thinking about to whom these are the distinctions that make a difference.

the idea that, say, all secular ppl will have more in common with each other than they will with certain theists is rubbish. esp given that ppls beliefs change and that its often quite subtle or minor shifts in overall worldview that wld move them up or down this scale, or at least, the differences are overstated.

and ofc, my favourite point for all discussions: a lot of ppl don't really know what they think. not just agnosticism; uncertainty and the inability to express these ideas are integral to all(?) religious traditions. ppl 'suddenly' changing their minds and so on, all manner of outside influences both at the individual and collective level.

the Pew Center isn't here for your shades of gray, they are here to generate a foundation of facts.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

I got solidly secular "along with 17% of the public" bloody hell. Are there really that few nonreligious people in the US? I feel like if you did this poll in my environs I'd be in around a 40% or more group.

"Religious Resister", which is horseshit if you aren't equating religion with Christianity as these fuckers appear to be.

Because Christianity is the only religious worth resisting?

I got solidly secular, as expected, though I'd say it's only 90% accurate.

There needs to be an ‘aggressively atheist’ category, but it’s a pretty poorly constructed poll.

NB the categories are just clusters of ppl who answered similarly to the questions in the survey that were induced by data+clustering method+chosen # of clusters. The names are post hoc and might as well be A, B, C…

I knew I was solidly secular before I took the quiz and that is the result I got. Very clear answers, no waffling at all. Easy.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

yawn

i feel pretty good about my result -- my mom literally raised me to believe that one could be a good and moral person and not belong to any religion. she is in her 70s now and i think is fairly radical for her generation in her commitment to secular values (my dad too but that's another story) solidly secular is how i would have described myself at any point in my life.

i think this is a fine result -- did anyone expect religious zeal?