- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnePerhaps it is just mimicry. Perhaps they just sit before the tabernacle because this is ingrained habit. Perhaps it is even a result of superstition -- some Catholics do credit magic properties to the Eucharist. Perhaps, however, they believe that Jesus is really present, even if they do not have the verbal power to articulate how. Perhaps 'symbolic' is just the appropriate word for them to capture how Jesus is present but not physically present.
[b]Their religious behaviour, however, genuflecting and kneeling to the Eucharist, praying before it and so on, does suggest their knowledge of this.
This doesn't seem right. How does this "suggest knowledge" above mere mimicry?[/b]
The point is a very simple maxim that memory is not the same as understanding, the ability to recite a doctrine is not the same as to understand it. Testing religious knowledge may require you to inquire about their religious behaviour as well. Perhaps in the case of this survey, it would have helped if it were an interviewer who could elicit further responses.
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by Conrau KSorry, I wasn't interested discussing the point of your post on the whole. I found that statement particularly curious so thought I'd ask.
Perhaps it is just mimicry. Perhaps they just sit before the tabernacle because this is ingrained habit. Perhaps it is even a result of superstition -- some Catholics do credit magic properties to the Eucharist. Perhaps, however, they believe that Jesus is really present, even if they do not have the verbal power to articulate how. Perhaps 'symbolic' is jus ...[text shortened]... his survey, it would have helped if it were an interviewer who could elicit further responses.
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by Conrau KThe article does not claim that atheists are experts on any given religion. It merely claims that they tend to know more than its practitioners.
I am often skeptical of surveys of religious knowledge. Religion doctrines are often terribly complicated and it is often difficult to test whether real knowledge exists. Take for example the Trinity. An atheist may quite accurately reiterate the basic Trinitarian formula 'Three persons and one nature'. He may even be clever and impress his interviewer with ...[text shortened]... to summarise the doctrines of their church. It does not really assess their actual knowledge.
29 Sep 10
1 edit
There is another survey, which indicated that Jewish, Atheist/Agnostic, and Mormon scored the highest.
http://features.pewforum.org/quiz/us-religious-knowledge/
Is this survey in the posted article any where around? I wouldn't mind taking it myself to see how I do.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by rwingettI am well aware of the content of the article. I don't see how this quibble however bears on anything I just wrote.
The article does not claim that atheists are experts on any given religion. It merely claims that they tend to know more than its practitioners.
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI agree. I don't know that the writer of the article was nearly able to distinguish between topical and intrinsic knowledge as we might initially give credit for: it is one thing to say the words, quite another to know what they mean... quite another yet to agree with them.
I am often skeptical of surveys of religious knowledge. Religion doctrines are often terribly complicated and it is often difficult to test whether real knowledge exists. Take for example the Trinity. An atheist may quite accurately reiterate the basic Trinitarian formula 'Three persons and one nature'. He may even be clever and impress his interviewer with ...[text shortened]... to summarise the doctrines of their church. It does not really assess their actual knowledge.
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by Conrau KSo, in other words, you cannot really know what the definitions of the words within scriptures really mean until you have faith in their corresponding religion?
I am often skeptical of surveys of religious knowledge. Religion doctrines are often terribly complicated and it is often difficult to test whether real knowledge exists. Take for example the Trinity. An atheist may quite accurately reiterate the basic Trinitarian formula 'Three persons and one nature'. He may even be clever and impress his interviewer with ...[text shortened]... to summarise the doctrines of their church. It does not really assess their actual knowledge.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by lauseyThat is an interesting question. I think that an atheist who has never experienced religious fervour will have difficulty, for example, understanding mystical literature. The thoughts and images would feel foreign because he would have no immediate, direct experience of them. So, yes, religious faith can be necessary precursor for religious knowledge. But I do think, however, that an atheist could have a solid understanding of Scripture and religious doctrine, even exceeding that of those committed to the doctrine. My point here is simply that verbal reiteration of a doctrine, without any understanding of its semantic content, does not test religious knowledge.
So, in other words, you cannot really know what the definitions of the words within scriptures really mean until you have faith in their corresponding religion?