Kevin Drum points me to some interesting data from the Pew Forum On Religion & Public Life.
Here’s some specific denominational breakdowns….
And by party….
Remember that the Congressional Black Caucus is Democratic, and mostly Protestant. So white Protestants are probably on the order of 30% of the congressional delegation. Some of the differences between the general population and Congress are easy to explain; Jews are relatively high SES and those who run for Congress are high SES. Similarly, mainine Protestant groups such as Episcopalians have historically been high SES, and likewise they are overrepresented in Congress. Mormon representation is always assured because of geographic concentration. As Kevin observed, while 16.1% of Americans are not affiliated with a religion, no one in Congress will assent to this. There is an atheist in Congress, Peter Stark. But he is a Unitarian-Universalist, so he is affiliated with a religion, albeit a non-creedal one.
Peter Stark’s case highlights the likelihood of what is going on, there are almost certainly other “cryptic atheists” in Congress, who take advantage of the conventional assumption by Americans that affiliation with a religion connotes theism. Let’s look at the Pew data on confidence in the existence of God by religious tradition:
It seems very likely that many of the Jews in Congress are culturally and not religiously identified. A quick & dirty check in the GSS suggests that Jewish confidence in the existence of God tends to decrease with education.
And now let’s look at confidence in existence of God by Protestant denomination:
I assume that a far higher proportion of those affiliated with mainline Protestant churches are theists than is the case among Jews. There is a structural emphasis on creed in Protestantism which is less prominent in Judaism. But, there are many more mainline Protestants than Jews in Congress, so it is likely that the majority of the cryptic athiests or agnostics are found within this group.
Pingback: » just like in the muslim world, there is … Talk Islam
Wait, am I reading that first “Belief in God” chart right? Is it suggesting that 8% of self-reported atheists are absolutely certain that there is a god?
Man, people are weird.
The question was, “Do you believe in god or a universal spirit?” I have encountered mystics and even Buddhists who considered themselves atheists, because they did not believe in the traditional notion of a personal god; but still reckoned there was a universal spirit or life force. ◄Dave►
I wouldn’t consider that weird. I’m an atheist, but I don’t think you’ll ever hear me say, “I’m absolutely certain there’s no God.” I think it’s highly unlikely there’s a God; unlikely enough that I don’t lose any sleep over it.
Much weirder than the 8% of atheists are the 17% of agnostics who are dead certain there is a god or universal spirit. To reverse a well-known anti-agnostic expression … “Don’t you have to be uncerain of something?” I guess they are just uncertain if the spirit has a personality…?
The main problem with surveys like this is the vagueness of the terms. This is really a survey of what definitions people think certain terms have.
The main problem with surveys like this is the vagueness of the terms.
I think this is secondary to the fact that most people are stupid.
@David Hume
Come on, don’t sugar-coat everything! Tell us how you really feel! 🙂 Every time I read one of your posts I get Monty Python’s “Philospher Song” stuck in my head.
@Blode0322
Being stupid is not being bad. Smart people are much better at implementing evil than stupid people on a per pound basis. Smart people are actually just the least stupid people 🙂 I mean, I think people can agree that most humans are not good-looking, that a substantial number are ugly, that half are less attractive than average. And, none of that has any moral corollary no matter what the Greeks thought. Same with intelligence. But somehow we’re supposed to pretend that most people are bright enough to be logical, and their assertions have some basis in knowledge. No thanks. I might not be that smart, but I’m not that dumb. Being stupid isn’t wrong, but thinking people aren’t stupid is.
I disagree with the idea that smart people are better at implementing evil. Most of the two-legged predators roaming the streets committing rapes, robberies, and murders are about one step above being retardates. Criminality (or evil) does, however, manifest itself in different ways according to intelligence, education, and financial class. The crook with an IQ of 125 who graduated from the Harvard Business School has different options for manifesting evil open to him (or her) than the eighth-grade drop-out with an IQ of 85 who’s knocking over liquor stores or armored cars.
The crook with an IQ of 125 who graduated from the Harvard Business School has different options for manifesting evil open to him (or her)
Measure the aggregate of utility decrement of tens of thousands of “upper middle class” Americans transformed into working class Americans vs. petty criminals who severely victimize a dozen. The stupid tend to lack organization, they require the intelligent to organize them into a unit. I’m also skeptical of the contention that high IQ sociopaths who go into “business” are also adding much value at this point 🙂
P.S. they let someone with an IQ of 125 into Harvard B-School? I guess GW Bush got in, and he’s in that range.
“The stupid tend to lack organization…” In a way, that’s my point. Criminality (or evil) tends to manifest itself according to the means and opportunities available to it. If you’re inclined to steal billions, and you have the means and opprotunity to do so, you will. If you’re inclined to mug old ladies in the mall, and you have the means and opportunity to do so, you will.
Actually, the B-School has much less stringent admissions requirements than Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School, or even the undergraduate school. Been there, seen that.
In a way, that’s my point. Criminality (or evil) tends to manifest itself according to the means and opportunities available to it.
My point is that the smart can do great good and great evil because of their access to institutional levers and efficiency and implementation of task.
Again, the scope of evil is dependent on the means available to the evildoer, just as the scope of good is dependent on the means available to the do-gooder. If I’m intelligent and well-intentioned, perhaps I can do great good if the means are available to me. I can do good on a much lesser scale if the means aren’t. I don’t think we’re disagreeing. My point was just that evil manifests itself in the ways avalible to it.
Pingback: Secular Right » An Anodyne Age?