The myth of Northern Irish religiosity
The first ever religious knowledge poll conducted in Northern Ireland was published today and it "upsets stereotype that NI is more religious than the South". Researchers conclude that "there are low levels of religious knowledge in both communities. However, levels of knowledge among NI Protestants/Evangelicals markedly lower than among NI Catholics." The opinion poll was conducted by Millward Brown Ulster on behalf of The Iona Institute, the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland (EAI) and the Evangelical Alliance (Northern Ireland). The findings in full are available .
Stephen Cave of Evangelical Alliance (Northern Ireland), said:
The results of this poll throw serious doubt on the claim that we are a 'Christian country'.
The Key findings:
* Only 42pc of respondents in the North can say there are four Gospels. (Catholics: 52pc. Protestants 36pc)
* Only 54pc of respondents can name the Holy Trinity. (Catholics: 65pc. Protestants: 45pc).
* Just 60pc of respondents can name the first book of the Bible. (Catholics: 54pc. Protestants: 68pc. This is the one question where Protestants were considerably more likely to know the answer than Catholics).
* Only 31pc of respondents could say the First Commandment. (Catholics: 39pc. Protestants: 26pc).
* Only 31pc of respondents could identify Martin Luther as the man who started the Reformation. (Catholics: 30pc. Protestants: 32pc).
The poll also found a marked difference between the levels of knowledge found among younger and older age groups. This means religious knowledge is in decline.
For example:
* Just 21pc of NI respondents aged 16-24 could say there are four Gospels versus 54pc of the over 65s.
* Only 33pc of respondents aged 16-24 could name the Holy Trinity versus 67pc of the over 65s.
* Just 17pc of respondents in the younger age group could say the First Commandment versus 46pc of the older age group.
Responding to the opinion poll, Mr Stephen Cave of Evangelical Alliance (Northern Ireland), said:
鈥淭he results of this poll throw serious doubt on the claim that we are a 'Christian country'. Overall the figures are not good but the drop in knowledge, almost halved within a generation, indicates that the Christian faith is becoming less meaningful to those under 25 years of age. The findings present a serious challenge to the church and those involved in religious education but it is all too easy to point the finger. Older people of faith must seriously consider how they are passing on what they know to future generations.鈥
Mr David Quinn of The Iona Institute commented:
鈥淚t鈥檚 likely that many people will find the Northern Ireland results surprising in that the general impression is that the North is more religious than the South. Judged by both religious practice and religious knowledge this is definitely not the case. It鈥檚 time to consign that notion to the dust-bin.鈥
He continued: 鈥淎s with the poll conducted in the South, we find that levels of religious knowledge in the North are very low, especially among young people. It shows that knowledge of Christianity, both North and South, is disappearing from general knowledge.鈥
Mr Se谩n Mullan of the Evangelical Alliance commented: 鈥淔ollowing our poll at Easter, this poll again shows that the notion of Ireland, both North and South, being a Christian culture is becoming a thing of the past. The notion that Christianity can be transmitted through the culture from one generation to the next is clearly no longer valid. These findings present a challenge to all those who believe that the message of Jesus Christ needs to be heard in Irish society. Communicating that message is not primarily the job of schools or state institutions. It is the job of those who still believe the message.鈥
Comments
I got all of the questions right and I鈥檝e been an atheist for decades. Obviously, this can only mean that the religious should be promoting non-belief. Was a little confused by the wording of Q8, though 鈥 鈥淣ame The Apostle Who Wrote Most Of The Letter Of The New Testament鈥.
Even as an issue of general knowledge rather than religion, these results seem surprisingly poor, but there are other subjects more worthy of remedial action. Basic scientific knowledge can be pretty lamentable too and thinking that the Sun goes around the Earth seems worse to me than not knowing the word for transubstantiation.
Given that the level of regular attendance at religious services is still much higher in Northern Ireland than the rest of the UK, this poll suggests that a lot of people are going through the motions more out of habit and tradition than positive, informed choice. By these results, most have only noticed Easter and Christmas.
The degree of influence afforded to religious institutions does now seem to be out of all proportion to the size of their mandate - realignment of this anachronism seems long overdue. It also raises the issue of ensuring that ethical values are communicated explicitly to the young in a humanistic manner 鈥 one that is not dependent upon pulling religious levers that may no longer be connected to anything.
I was pleasantly surprised that the guy from the Evangelical Alliance concluded that 鈥淐ommunicating that message is not primarily the job of schools or state institutions. It is the job of those who still believe the message鈥. I鈥檓 opposed to state funded religious schools, but based on these results perhaps I should reconsider. Seems the best way to suck all interest out of a subject is to get schools to promote it.
Is there any chance that these findings will instil a little humility and honesty in those archbishops who wield the 鈥榝act鈥 that 72% of the population is Christian as a weapon to pressure politicians? Didn鈥檛 think so.
Interesting. What we're witnessing is the passing of an era: from a primarily religious culture the British Isles is becoming a primarily secular culture, and these results represent the last holdout of that era in 2007! For how many aeons will the new era last, I wonder?
"The poll also found a marked difference between the levels of knowledge found among younger and older age groups. This means religious knowledge is in decline."
It means exactly what it says. I would take a decline in knowledge to be youth knowing less now than the youth at any other time. That hasn't been shown, and needs to be argued for. But don't people learn as they get older?
And surely it's a huge stretch to conclude anything about being more or less "religious" from the questions asked.
(And we are told very little about the statistical methods used).
Protestant ministers and R.C. priests are no longer the shepherds that they once were, they are reaping empty churches because they no longer sow their parishes with pastoral visitation, and they need to get back to walking the walk of walking their parishes and get to know the suffering sinners who live on the door step of their empty churches.
My wife went to a baptismal service in a Methodist church in North Belfast on Sunday past and the congregation more than doubled in size to about 30 by the friends and family of the baby being baptised.
Ministers, Elders and communicant members are only bearing the fruit of labours, empty churches, but on the other hand the biggest single congregation in Northern Ireland which happens to be in North Belfast regularly do door to door work in their parish area and they have teams that work in Belfast city centre most Saturdays which is reflected by the number of people that attend this church every Sunday and every night during the week, and there is a team of 10 fulltime pastors to cater for the needs of this particular congregation.
The time has come for the main stream churches to awake out of their slumber and to answer the harvest call.
C.H.Spurgeon in his wisdom once said: God does not give harvests to idle men except harvests
of thistles
Is it any wonder that Christian knowledge is slowly disappearing?
This poll on its own doesn鈥檛 demonstrate decline in knowledge over time, but it does seem to fit with a number of surveys showing low levels of belief in a personal god and the decline in active participation.
I would suspect there has always been a high number amongst the religious who may turn out every Sunday but have little clue as to the details of the religion they affiliate to. By and large, religions seem happy to count such nominal believers as full members, even when they depart from church teachings on major ethical issues.
Regardless of whether this is a growing trend, the low level of interest in the basic details shown by this survey does seem to call into question the degree to which religious leaders can claim to speak for their flocks. The gulf seems all the wider when you see the theologians attempting to rebut the likes of Dawkins鈥 book. Their conception of the ineffable possibility of transcendence seems to have even less connection with the average cultural Christian.
Religious leaders often use the size of their flock to give weight to their opinions or to imply that whatever they are offended at this week equally offends their entire congregation. If the shamrock-wearing Irish can鈥檛 even be relied upon to name the components of the trinity, how can the church presume to be speaking in their name?
A warm RAmen (if you're maybe a Pastafarian too) to your posts in this thread, nonplussed. On other boards I am sometimes struck by the lack of basic knowledge of the bible underlying the posts of many christians. It's often quite funny how atheists can easily teach christians lessons on their own turf. Although it's depressing at the same time in how many people are happy not to think their world views through in any significant way.
Peter, I've noticed that for quite some time. Perhaps the more Protestants find out about the bible, the more likely they are to re-designate as "atheists", which would (perhaps) artificially drag down the Proddie performance on the poll. Ex-Catholics might remain more likely to designate themselves as Catholics. Just a possibility.
Still, it is (perhaps) alarming at how few people even know some of the most simplistic basics. How can people *possibly* be in a position to understand religion with so little knowledge, yet they are happy to use the label of "Protestant" or "Catholic"? Of course everyone is pretty ignorant about the vast majority of the world's religions, which makes the notion of One True Religion completely risible. Any god who *arranged* for there to be One True Religion must therefore be an idiot, and therefore not worth worshipping.
That being the case, atheism is arguably the most *respectful* position to take towards an almighty being. Perhaps religion was designed to be transcended ;-)
But if our Protestants and Catholics were to even read one chapter of the Bible, let it be 1 Samuel 15. That should sort 'em out.
That's what 20 years of the Alive O programme in Catholic schools will get you.
"Name the first Protestant reformer" was a stupid question which no pub quiz master would allow as it is open to debate.
And how could far more people name the authors of the Gospels than could count them? Something dodgy with the methodology I think.
Yeah Amenhotep, that鈥檚 just your simplistic, atheistic, straw-man reading of 1 Samuel.
Everybody knows that God鈥檚 unchanging objective morality was different back then and anyway Jesus brought a new covenant whilst changing not one jot or tittle and furthermore it is only metaphorical genocide meant to teach us that if we set out to do something we really shouldn鈥檛 quit before we鈥檙e done unless, of course, it is literal in which case the Amalekites deserved all they got and God probably had good reasons that we are too puny to understand.
Thanks Peter. I feel well positioned to be one of the pastafari as I know nothing of the noodley one鈥檚 theology and by spooky coincidence am planning to have a spot of spaghetti bolognese this evening (that鈥檚 not going to result in a fatwa, I hope).
Hi nonplussed,
"Thanks Peter. I feel well positioned to be one of the pastafari as I know nothing of the noodley one鈥檚 theology and by spooky coincidence am planning to have a spot of spaghetti bolognese this evening (that鈥檚 not going to result in a fatwa, I hope)."
You would fit in perfectly! The FSM is a bit of a drunken piece of incompetence as far as Almighty, merciful deities go. Not knowing anything would make you a good Pastafarian. If you like a beer now and then (beer has special meaning in Pastafarianism) then you would be a perfect match. Dylan Dog recently joined the FSM disciples. If you care for an introduction too, then drop me an email, see website linked to my user name.
Anyway, Pastafarianism is a very benign, non-violent faith, so enjoy your meal without any fear of fatwas.
Yes guys God did command certain peoples wiped out;
but just the ones that burnt their children alive, sexually abused animals, communed with demons, raped their children and launched terrorist attacks on Israel.
As CS Lewis said, Aslan is good, but not safe (ie God is not father Christmas).
;-)
PB
HOORAY!
The latest survey of religious knowledge and belief confirms what Humanists have been saying for years, namely that Northern Ireland is a less religious society than we might suppose from the prominence given in the media to religious spokesmen.
This decline is to be welcomed, but of course in the media it generally won鈥檛 be, and we shall read and hear endless laments about 鈥榯he dangers of secularism鈥 (see Alf McCreary in today鈥檚 Belfast Telegraph or Cardinal Brady recently), because clerics and their lay supporters dominate the newspapers /radio/tv etc. and it is their slant on the world that achieves public hegemony.
As far as 鈥榯he dangers of secularism鈥 are concerned, here again is a myth which needs to be challenged. Unlike some brands of religion, secularism is a challenging and enlightened outlook which seeks to encourage and celebrate all human endeavour which contributes to the betterment of life now and in the future.
Secularism is to be welcomed for several reasons. Here are just a few:
(1) It promotes freethought and reason
(2) It promotes respect and tolerance through our common humanity, not division and hatred.
(3) It encourages a genuine spirituality, i.e. of the human spirit, not some mythical other world.
(4) It enables us to develop an ethic suitable to the modern world of liberal democracy.
I'm not sure the poll is worth a hill of beans. Half of the RCs that I ask can not correctly answer the question: To what woman does the immaculate conception pertain?
How many Beatles fans can answer the following questions correctly?
Which Beatles song was about John's bad experience with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?
1. Eleanor Rigby
2. Mother Nature's Son
3. Sexy Sadie
4. Piggies
The 1965 Beatles film 'Help!' centers around Ringo being pursued by:
1. A throng of screaming fans.
2. An obscure Asian cult that believes in human sacrifice.
3. Pete Best, the original Beatles drummer.
4. The Blue Meanies.
Which sacred text inspired George's lyrics to 'The Inner Light'?
1. Torah
2. Qur'an
3. Tao Te Ching
4. Dhammapada
Which Beatles song does not feature George playing the sitar?
1. Norwegian Wood
2. Girl
3. Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds
4. While My Guitar Gently Weeps
Which was not among the people featured on the album cover of 'Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band'?
1. Albert Einstein
2. Sri Mahavatara Babaji
3. Jesus Christ
4. Marilyn Monroe
What did George say when he was attacked in his home in 1999?
1. Help me!
2. Hare Krishna!
3. Save me, Jesus!
4. Baruch Hashem!
Presumably since only 33pc of respondents aged 16-24 could name the Holy Trinity we will find that those of you in that age group in the sixties (me included) can get more than 2 of the above 6 questions correct about the Beatles!
Regards,
Michael
Well, I guess I should add "Amen" to Smasher's post.
And Q7 is surely inappropriate, since most Protestants don't believe in transubstantiation. (Even if they were expected to know of the doctrine, why expect them -- or anyone -- to be able to name it? That's a trivial matter).
Most of these questions are external; they test general knowledge about the traditions, not anything regarding the teachings internal to them. Even the Trinity is a (notoriously tricky) theological concept which is not to be found in the Bible as such, and no tradition I know of makes salvation depend on a grasp of it. (Denying it is another matter).
Note also that Will reports the results with a negative gloss.
I could go on.
Nonplussed: I'm no fan of nominal Christianity. But I've studied some philosophy of statistics and am touchy about misinterpreting such studies.
Why, for example, are you throwing this into the mix?:
"The gulf seems all the wider when you see the theologians attempting to rebut the likes of Dawkins鈥 book. Their conception of the ineffable possibility of transcendence seems to have even less connection with the average cultural Christian."
And what does it mean?
But you raise the interesting issues of to what extent religious leaders speak for their "flock", and about how to take an accurate measure of the size of said group. If anyone knows of any other relevant studies I'd like to be pointed to them.
Cheers.
I agree the questions are testing simple factual knowledge, not theology, but surely the results are all the more telling for that. Transubstantiation may be a little used technical term for something generally understood, but I hardly think that knowledge of the components of the trinity are as optional as you make out. St. Patrick seemed to think it was a big deal.
Regarding: 鈥渘o tradition I know of makes salvation depend on a grasp of it. (Denying it is another matter)鈥. If I do not have a grasp of a concept, how can I affirm or deny it? Similarly, if I cannot name the commandments how can I say I am living by them 鈥 how strongly can I believe my god handed them down if I don鈥檛 think it important to remember them?
It perhaps isn鈥檛 the place for an atheist to be setting minimum standards for the religious. However, I do think there must be some content behind the labels we give ourselves or else they lose meaning. If we don鈥檛 know the basic details then what does it mean to side with Catholic or Protestant? If it only informs others of our heritage and not our theology then something seems amiss.
I thought that my reason for throwing the theologians 鈥渋nto the mix鈥 was clear enough. The spectrum of believer runs from those apparently reflected in this survey who haven鈥檛 thought about it enough to those who have thought about it so much that their abstractions defy comprehension.
Such a range can be convenient for church leaders who can dismiss Dawkins for attacking a version of god lacking theological subtlety, but include in their numbers many who hold an even more simplistic concept. It is so wide a range it doesn鈥檛 seem appropriate for anyone to claim to represent its moral stance on any subject.
I know the churches are top-down affairs rather than representative democracies, but when the Catholic Church has failed to convince so many of its own members to follow its stance on homosexuality, contraception, etc. why does it think it acceptable to pressure politicians to legislate their views on the rest of us? They are lobbying for the Pope on the pretext of speaking for their flock.
I don鈥檛 think Will gave the report a negative gloss. It is reasonable to question the significance of the survey, but the findings themselves come across negatively without any glossing required.
Nonplussed:
Yes, to affirm or deny the Trinity you must have understood it. And denying it is a Bad Thing. But no one I know makes salvation depend upon understanding the Trinity! Hence you need not affirm it.
I have been in plenty of churches (especially pentecostal churches, ironically enough) where it is not emphasised at all. Admittidly, it is the most damning result of the survey, though.
How can you be justified in claiming to live by the commandments but not be able to say which is number 1? Well: you read or hear them, satisfy yourself that you follow them, but then forget their exact content or order. Following them isn't a crude matter of memorising them as a set of rules; you will surely know how Jesus summarised them.
Thanks for explaining about the theologians.
I take it that "negative gloss" has a fairly objective meaning; when you report the most negative results, and write "only 54%" and "just 60%", then I'd say it is fair to label that as giving a negative gloss. Of course, Will was assuming that the percentages would be greater because NI is "religious". But then the same glossed results are used to identify how "religious" NI in fact is. It is well enough known that people's perception of the meaning of such studies depends on how they are reported, so a subtle error can creep in here. (It wasn't a dig at Will!)
Claiming to live by the 10 commandments, yet not keeping number 9, is somewhat hypocritical (I'm referring principally to creationists in this). And then there's the sabbath (Saturday), of course, but let's not go there.
How can denying the Trinity be a "Bad Thing"? How can it be regarded as a moral failing to simply not believe something that strikes you as a load of cobblers?
That seems a little unfair. Blessed are the gullible, for they shall see whatever they want to see. Blessed are the poor in intellect, for there's nothing god hates more than a smartarse?
[Will, that little mathematical verification thing at the bottom of the comments page is a problem. It might prevent PB from posting when his mummy isn't around to help him with the hard sums. Just approaching this from an equality perspective, you understand.]
-A
Amenhotep:
"Not believe" is not equivalent to "deny".
As to why denying it is a Bad Thing, I'm not sure.