The Religious Typology - Pew

[hope_for_things]

I just read a DNews article on this new Pew religious typology study that was conducted.  Thought some of you might find this interesting and worthy of some discussion.  The methodology is a little different.  There is also a 16 question quiz you can take to see which bucket you fall into.  I'm "Solidly Secular" according to this quiz.  Interesting stuff.  

http://www.pewforum.org/2018/08/29/the-religious-typology/

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900029734/are-you-a-sunday-stalwart-or-solidly-secular-new-study-sorts-americans-by-religious-habits.html

Here is the Quiz, it only took me 3-5 mins max and was 16 questions long.  

http://www.pewforum.org/quiz/religious-typology/

 

[HappyJackWagon]

I came out as "relaxed religious".

Quote

Most Relaxed Religious Americans say they believe in the God of the Bible, and four-in-ten pray daily. But relatively few attend religious services or read scripture, and almost all say it is not necessary to believe in God to be a moral person.

Literally, none of those things reflect my answers to the questions  

[clarkgoble]

I think it's interesting in that I think it shows a strong move away from organized religion but not away from religion. Further it shows more of a return to what I'd call folk religion - interestingly probably more in common with the background of Joseph Smith in certain ways. That's not to deny agnostics and atheists increasing in numbers. Just at a much smaller rate.

I'd add that when one looks at Europe while there's little connection to organized religion anymore except as a kind of cultural marker, what one could broadly call religious beliefs/behaviors persist. (Some might pejoratively call that superstitions)  Some might say that this is because religious comportments are just basic to evolved human cognition. Others would say that the more formal aspects of religion have been superceded by the state as it's taken many of the roles and duties once held by religion. And of course more people looking at how religion evolved tend to see the rise of the state and the rise of more formal organized religion as co-evolving. In many cases separating the two is difficult historically.

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I came out as "relaxed religious".

Literally, none of those things reflect my answers to the questions  

Interesting, not all of the description for solidly secular seemed directly applicable to me either.  

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think it's interesting in that I think it shows a strong move away from organized religion but not away from religion. Further it shows more of a return to what I'd call folk religion - interestingly probably more in common with the background of Joseph Smith in certain ways. That's not to deny agnostics and atheists increasing in numbers. Just at a much smaller rate.

I'd add that when one looks at Europe while there's little connection to organized religion anymore except as a kind of cultural marker, what one could broadly call religious beliefs/behaviors persist. (Some might pejoratively call that superstitions)  Some might say that this is because religious comportments are just basic to evolved human cognition. Others would say that the more formal aspects of religion have been superceded by the state as it's taken many of the roles and duties once held by religion. And of course more people looking at how religion evolved tend to see the rise of the state and the rise of more formal organized religion as co-evolving. In many cases separating the two is difficult historically.

I completely agree with you about the shift away from organized religion not necessarily a shift away from religious kind of thinking.  With folk religion, would you include herbal medicinal treatments and other practices that aren't based on science?  I see some trends towards those things, and I think where organized religion may have filled those yearnings for people in the past they are finding other avenues today.  

It would be interesting to see some really long term studies conducted across generations to try and measure superstitious thinking over time, like over a 50 year period.  I would still like to think that for developed and educated societies that there is a straight line move away from this kind of thinking, but I worry that there might be some bounce back effects happening in recent years.  

[The Nehor]

I got “Demented Demonologist”.

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I got “Demented Demonologist”.

Cool, that actually falls into the same category as Sunday Stalwart.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I completely agree with you about the shift away from organized religion not necessarily a shift away from religious kind of thinking.  With folk religion, would you include herbal medicinal treatments and other practices that aren't based on science?  I see some trends towards those things, and I think where organized religion may have filled those yearnings for people in the past they are finding other avenues today.  

It would be interesting to see some really long term studies conducted across generations to try and measure superstitious thinking over time, like over a 50 year period.  I would still like to think that for developed and educated societies that there is a straight line move away from this kind of thinking, but I worry that there might be some bounce back effects happening in recent years.  

Yeah, I tend to see things like aspects of health food and herbal medical treatments and the like as tied to folk religion. Although I do think one has to be careful there. You see with say the backlash against oils the assumption it's all non-scientific whereas there's actually a large amount of science on many aspects of herbs and oils - particularly their anti-microbial properties. It's just that the way MLMs push sales incentivizes people to make ridiculous claims. You also see the rise of more obviously religious practices in those communities like various forms of faith/energy healings, seeing energy in various objects and people, and so forth. Usually there's no desire to even ask obvious questions like, "how would this work systematically?" To the degree such appeals are made they're usually tied to existing religious traditions like eastern medicine with chakra points, chi, and so forth. You have a lot of middle ground too in movements like chiropractory. Some practice it in a scientific or at least quasi-scientific fashion while others tend to embrace its more questionable roots - again often grounding things in eastern ontological conceptions of energy.

There have been some studies of superstitions over time. The gss actually has several questions you can do analysis with. So one question that goes back to 1979 in the gss is "Would you say that astrology is very scientific, sort of scientific, or not scientific at all?" There are others. All the gss data is public and their website has a very nice way of accessing the data. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

54 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yeah, I tend to see things like aspects of health food and herbal medical treatments and the like as tied to folk religion. Although I do think one has to be careful there. You see with say the backlash against oils the assumption it's all non-scientific whereas there's actually a large amount of science on many aspects of herbs and oils - particularly their anti-microbial properties. It's just that the way MLMs push sales incentivizes people to make ridiculous claims. You also see the rise of more obviously religious practices in those communities like various forms of faith/energy healings, seeing energy in various objects and people, and so forth. Usually there's no desire to even ask obvious questions like, "how would this work systematically?" To the degree such appeals are made they're usually tied to existing religious traditions like eastern medicine with chakra points, chi, and so forth. You have a lot of middle ground too in movements like chiropractory. Some practice it in a scientific or at least quasi-scientific fashion while others tend to embrace its more questionable roots - again often grounding things in eastern ontological conceptions of energy.

There have been some studies of superstitions over time. The gss actually has several questions you can do analysis with. So one question that goes back to 1979 in the gss is "Would you say that astrology is very scientific, sort of scientific, or not scientific at all?" There are others. All the gss data is public and their website has a very nice way of accessing the data. 

This is great, I agree 100% and I'll check out that gss data, very interesting.  Thanks much

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

"Would you say that astrology is very scientific, sort of scientific, or not scientific at all?"

What is the difference between astrology and astronomy?

About 50 IQ points.

[Rich Hansen]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

What is the difference between astrology and astronomy?

About 50 IQ points.

Except for Newton, Kepler, Galileo and others who held some belief in astrology.

Galileo also wrote extensively about alchemy.

Some suggest Joseph Smith's dabbling in the occult was training for his role as prophet, seer, and revelator.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Rich Hansen said:

Except for Newton, Kepler, Galileo and others who held some belief in astrology.

Galileo also wrote extensively about alchemy.

Some suggest Joseph Smith's dabbling in the occult was training for his role as prophet, seer, and revelator.

Quite right. I should check my horoscope:

"Crazy antics ensue when your new roommate turns out to be a polar bear, and you’re fresh out of chum."

That is not very helpful. I will have to look elsewhere:

"Your underpants do not accurately represent your age or gender. Shame on you."

How did the stars know???? Hopefully it will end well:

"There will be no changes of note in your life this week, which is surprising considering how easy it should be to get a bear trap off your head these days."

My sign is causing me unspeakable pain. It has to get better:

"Sorry to tell you this, but there‘s no such thing as “plus-sized” deodorant soap. Just use as much regular soap as you need to wash your enormous frame."

Stop insulting me!!!! I am cursed. I am going to take my life and end it all:

"Expressing yourself clearly has never been your strong point, so it should come as no surprise that it’ll take a few readings before people stop laughing and realize it’s your suicide note."

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Rich Hansen said:

Except for Newton, Kepler, Galileo and others who held some belief in astrology.

Galileo also wrote extensively about alchemy.

Some suggest Joseph Smith's dabbling in the occult was training for his role as prophet, seer, and revelator.

Not really fair to compare what was rational at the dawn of science and the limited evidence of the time with today. What might have been rational for Newton is quite irrational today.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

What is the difference between astrology and astronomy?

About 50 IQ points.

Depends on how you define "Astrology".

Because the first definition in Google is positively scriptural:

"the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs and the natural world."

Plenty of examples in scripture, and if not of their influence then of their meaning.

[Gray]

I wouldn't put too much meaning in this. Somehow I came out as a Sunday Stalwart.

[Rich Hansen]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not really fair to compare what was rational at the dawn of science and the limited evidence of the time with today. What might have been rational for Newton is quite irrational today.

It was a joke to Nehor.

I merely suggested it was impossible for Newton to have an IQ of 50 points less that what his IQ was since he took both astronomy and astrology seriously.

IOW, how could Newton have an IQ of 170 and 120 simultaneously?   I never suggested Newton was irrational.  Quite the opposite really.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, Gray said:

I wouldn't put too much meaning in this. Somehow I came out as a Sunday Stalwart.

Yikes, did you have a crisis of belief? 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yikes, did you have a crisis of belief? 

I would describe myself as essentially a pantheist who is active in the LDS church and holds a calling, and who has a (generally) positive view of religion, including the LDS church, but who is also critical of churches in areas where I think they are sleeping on the job.

[stemelbow]

Some of the questions and options sucked.  I'm a religious resister, they tell me.  There's some truth to that label I suppose, but still.  

[california boy]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I got “Demented Demonologist”.

Could have been worse.  You could have been a Demented Dermatologist.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I would describe myself as essentially a pantheist who is active in the LDS church and holds a calling, and who has a (generally) positive view of religion, including the LDS church, but who is also critical of churches in areas where I think they are sleeping on the job.

I think the quiz might falter a bit with respect to non-theist type conceptions of God.  It essentially doesn't approach those conceptions well with the limited choices, so I bet you ended up making choices that align with more conservative beliefs.  Do you think that might be what happened?  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Could have been worse.  You could have been a Demented Dermatologist.

I think they get paid better though.

[california boy]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think they get paid better though.

And their skin looks fabulous.  Plus you get to be besties with Cher.

Edited August 31, 2018 by california boy

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

And their skin looks fabulous.  Plus you get to be besties with Cher.

Yeah, but demonologists get to indulge in the depravities of hell. Tough choice.

[Maidservant]

I got Sunday Stalwart, probably because of my attendance, my affirmation that it helps my family, and plus my answer that religion does more good than harm.  But it is odd because I answered no to heaven, hell, Bible, and a few other bits like that.