Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on March 18, 2021, 11:56:19 AM
-
Humanists tell Non religious what they ought to put on the Census.
https://humanism.org.uk/2021/03/18/how-census-results-are-used-to-justify-discrimination-against-the-non-religious/
How is this not a complaint of persecution?
-
I think the clue is in the wording used.
It's a complaint about perceived discrimination.
-
Can't see that highlighting that people with no religious affiliation should ensure that they specifically indicate this when answering the census questions should ever be an issue: after all, surely a census is intended to provide an accurate overview of the issues regarding which data is being collected, and especially so where the data analysis is used to make policy decisions.
-
Can't see that highlighting that people with no religious affiliation should ensure that they specifically indicate this when answering the census questions should ever be an issue: after all, surely a census is intended to provide an accurate overview of the issues regarding which data is being collected, and especially so where the data analysis is used to make policy decisions.
My understanding is that Humanist UK has not been satisfied with the census arrangements but all the suggested changes from them actually favoured an atheist agenda e.g. mapping belief and the decline in it rather than affiliation. Cerebral rather than social practicality.
-
My understanding is that Humanist UK has not been satisfied with the census arrangements but all the suggested changes from them actually favoured an atheist agenda e.g. mapping belief and the decline in it rather than affiliation. Cerebral rather than social practicality.
In what way is seeking accuracy in this census an 'atheist agenda': would you not not agree that, as far as possible, no subset or group should be over or under represented in the analysis of data?
Would you not also agree that, given the role that religious affiliation has had in cultural and social policy terms, it would be important to track any evidence of changes in religious affiliation compared to the previous census, which is surely one aim of conducting a census are regular intervals - and to do that it is important that respondents are encouraged to select the response that best fits their (in this case) religious affiliation, or absence of one.
-
Humanists tell Non religious what they ought to put on the Census.
https://humanism.org.uk/2021/03/18/how-census-results-are-used-to-justify-discrimination-against-the-non-religious/
How is this not a complaint of persecution?
Nope - this is merely a response to a question widely accepted to be leading and biased, which implies a non-equivalence between having a religious belief and not having one.
The census question is: 'What is your religion?' - which is non-neutral with the inherent implication that people have a religion.
Other surveys ask a neutral preliminary question with a yes/no answer, such as 'Do you have a religious belief?', followed by a subsidiary question if you answer 'yes' in which you indicate what that belief is.
When the question is asked in a neutral manner there tends to be a reduction in those appearing to be religious of nigh on 10% compared to the use of the non-neutral census question.
The main justification from the ONS for the current census question is that it is short enough to fit within the space limits of the questionnaire, which seems doubly bizarre given that we are strongly encouraged to complete the census on-line where there are no such space constraints.
All HumanismUK is doing is to suggest that people who aren't religious say so, and not think they should respond to 'What is your religion?' by ticking the box of a religion they might have been brought up in by long since rejected.
What is the problem with trying to get accurate results in the census ... unless of course you are trying to preserve religious privilege on the basis of an over-inflated assessment of religiosity in the UK.
-
In what way is seeking accuracy in this census an 'atheist agenda': would you not not agree that, as far as possible, no subset or group should be over or under represented in the analysis of data?
Would you not also agree that, given the role that religious affiliation has had in cultural and social policy terms, it would be important to track any evidence of changes in religious affiliation compared to the previous census, which is surely one aim of conducting a census are regular intervals - and to do that it is important that respondents are encouraged to select the response that best fits their (in this case) religious affiliation, or absence of one.
Prior to running the religion question in the census the ONS take suggestions from the humanists among others. The humanists have complained that the religious question is always a leading one, intimating substitution or deletion, recently they have suggested substitution by questions relating to beliefs rather than practical affiliation. The ONS have pointed out to the Humanists that beliefs do not impact directly on practical matters. The aim of those moving for change among the atheists as I understanding were motivated to flag up beliefs or the lack of them and the consequential marginalisation of religion in terms of social, representional and intellectual provision. A campaigning atheist stunt par excellence.
I would move that a totally non religious society is now the unabashed aim of the Humanist even if that means getting questions preferrential to atheism.
On the other hand the idea that Humanists or non religious are in Gross terms social discriminated against seems a bit far fetched.
-
Vlad,
I would move that a totally non religious society is now the unabashed aim of the Humanist even if that means getting questions preferrential to atheism.
Asking whether you have a religious belief at all before asking which religious affiliation you have wouldn't be "getting questions preferrential to atheism".
Incidentally, if you actually did want to include a question preferential to atheism you'd just have to ask, "Can you think of any good reason to think that god(s) exists?". That way the census would record that the UK is 100% atheist.
-
Vlad,
Asking whether you have a religious belief at all before asking which religious affiliation you have wouldn't be "getting questions preferrential to atheism".
Incidentally, if you actually did want to include a question preferential to atheism you'd just have to ask, "Can you think of any good reason to think that god(s) exists?". That way the census would record that the UK is 100% atheist.
The Humanist campaign sought to replace religious affiliation with belief. The ONS saw an important distinction. The Humanists wanted to use beliefs instead of affiliation to seek to affect practical and social consideration. The Humanists were trying to conflate the cerebral or philosophical with the practical. What they did and do like though was having huge, broad and vague labels for people and groups of people. Their campaign looks as leading as anything here, by trying to get people to eliminate any scintilla of religion from their profile.
-
If you actually did want to include a question preferential to atheism you'd just have to ask, "Can you think of any good reason to think that god(s) exists?". That way the census would record that the UK is 100% atheist.
It might help if you were able to distinguish ''good reason'' from Philosophical empiricism.
-
Vlad,
The Humanist campaign sought to replace religious affiliation with belief. The ONS saw an important distinction. The Humanists wanted to use beliefs instead of affiliation to seek to affect practical and social consideration. The Humanists were trying to conflate the cerebral or philosophical with the practical. What they did and do like though was having huge, broad and vague labels for people and groups of people. Their campaign looks as leading as anything here, by trying to get people to eliminate any scintilla of religion from their profile.
Paranoid nonsense. All they’re actually doing is encouraging people with no religion “to tick ‘No religion’ or ‘None’ on the Census”.
First, that would provide more accurate census results.
Second, it would limit the ability of those who would otherwise use inaccurate results to justify various religiously-inspired policies in the public domain.
What’s wrong with that?
-
Perhaps 'belief' would be a better question then: after all someone could have a religious belief but not feel affiliated with any specific religion - make 'No' the first option (so that non-believers can quickly move on) and then given a series of options for those those who have a belief to categorise it (inc.'none of the above').
In the link in the OP it was noted that a couple of members in the HoL were arguing that the UK was a majority 'Christian' society based on the last census whereas other surveys show a decline in religious affiliation. Surely it is better to have accurate information regarding the extent and detail of religiosity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40467084
-
Vlad,
Paranoid nonsense. All they’re actually doing is encouraging people with no religion “to tick ‘No religion’ or ‘None’ on the Census”.
No, First of all ''religion'' is too broad a term to be making policy on unless you were a theocracy or atheocracy.First, that would provide more accurate census results.
Vaguer terminology cannot possibly lead to more accurate census results.
Secondly, people using church infrastructure eg weddings, funerals, schools etc. have an affillation with religion.
Second, it would limit the ability of those who would otherwise use inaccurate results to justify various religiously-inspired policies in the public domain.
What’s wrong with that?
It's just the same Paranoid nonsense you decry in your opening for starters and secondly, what the fuck does it actually mean? Are you able to link the census with this mythical burgeoning theocratic threat you are imagining?
-
Perhaps 'belief' would be a better question then: after all someone could have a religious belief but not feel affiliated with any specific religion - make 'No' the first option (so that non-believers can quickly move on) and then given a series of options for those those who have a belief to categorise it (inc.'none of the above').
In the link in the OP it was noted that a couple of members in the HoL were arguing that the UK was a majority 'Christian' society based on the last census whereas other surveys show a decline in religious affiliation. Surely it is better to have accurate information regarding the extent and detail of religiosity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40467084
Perhaps they meant that the country was majority Christian affiliated if they were going by the Census.
You've rather answered your question that if it went by belief you would only register philosophy, opinion and emotions which are less reliable in policy terms than affiliation.
You kind of open yourself to what I call the Ippy syndrome where you are forever looking for over 50% non belief so you can declare a Faragian landslide and finish with religion.
Asking people to go the whole hog and declare themselves as absolutely Non religious looks forced, false, desperate and frankly a bit oppressive but mostly a ruse by what Dawkins would term clever and mischievious atheists.
-
Vlad,
No, First of all ''religion'' is too broad a term to be making policy on unless you were a theocracy or atheocracy.
You may think so but we know already that there are those who would say, “the census says we’re still a religious country, therefore…”. For the purpose of, say, justifying faith schools in general the choice of religion on the form wouldn’t matter.
Vaguer terminology cannot possibly lead to more accurate census results.
Of course it can. This may have changed now, but back in the day I remember the passport application form box “Religion” followed by a series of options beginning with “CofE”. Most people would tick that one (on the basis that they weren’t a muslim, that that was the story in their school Christmas play etc). I believe there’s now an option “None”, so contrary to your assertion of course this “vaguer” option can lead to more accurate census results.
Secondly, people using church infrastructure eg weddings, funerals, schools etc. have an affillation with religion.
Yes, lots of people think their local church is a prettier place to get married than the municipal registry office for example. That tells you sweet FA though about whether they actually subscribe to the faith, which is what the census is supposed to find out.
It's just the same Paranoid nonsense you decry in your opening for starters and secondly, what the fuck does it actually mean? Are you able to link the census with this mythical burgeoning theocratic threat you are imagining?
Try reading the link you put in your OP for the answer to that.
-
Perhaps they meant that the country was majority Christian affiliated if they were going by the Census.
Then perhaps the census should ask people to indicate whether they regularly attend Christian services, or access them via media, so as to determine just how many active Christians there actually are - and if they now are a minority then clearly their influence should reflect that.
You've rather answered your question that if it went by belief you would only register philosophy, opinion and emotions which are less reliable in policy terms than affiliation.
I didn't suggest that philosophy, opinion or emotion were the equivalent of organised religion(s) - you're making stuff up again.
You kind of open yourself to what I call the Ippy syndrome where you are forever looking for over 50% non belief so you can declare a Faragian landslide and finish with religion.
I suspect very few Scotsmen would see themselves as 'Faragian' - is this the replacement for your previous use of 'Stalinist? If so, then it is just as silly.
Asking people to go the whole hog and declare themselves as absolutely Non religious looks forced, false, desperate and frankly a bit oppressive but mostly a ruse by what Dawkins would term clever and mischievious atheists.
Why? It is no more forced than asking people if they are actively involved in ballroom dancing. It sounds to me like you'd prefer not to have it confirmed that Christianity is on the decline should that finding then indicate that its influence on social policy should also, as a direct consequence, be reduced.
-
Then perhaps the census should ask people to indicate whether they regularly attend Christian services, or access them via media, so as to determine just how many active Christians there actually are - and if they now are a minority then clearly their influence should reflect that.
I think it already does, however their structural and cultural influence is what the census sets out to find out, belief is mostly of academic interest.
I would love to debate what and how much influence minorities should 'reflect' with you.
-
I suspect very few Scotsmen would see themselves as 'Faragian'
What's that got do with it? It sounds to me like you'd prefer not to have it confirmed that Christianity is on the decline should that finding then indicate that its influence on social policy should also, as a direct consequence, be reduced.
That's because your bias allows you to entertain such daft notions.
-
Vlad,
I think it already does, however their structural and cultural influence is what the census sets out to find out, belief is mostly of academic interest.
No it isn’t. The census asks factual questions, not qualitative ones.
I would love to debate what and how much influence minorities should 'reflect' with you.
Like the Christian minority you mean? Why?
-
I think it already does, however their structural and cultural influence is what the census sets out to find out, belief is mostly of academic interest.
What if their structural and cultural influence is disproportionate to the size of their self-confessed believers? I'd say that would be an issue to the rest of us, and especially so if the rest of us are in the majority - for example, I can't see that the Church of England should expect to exert much influence here in Scotland any more than the Church of Scotland should expect to exert influence outwith Scotland, and in both cases whether they have cohorts sufficient to justify seeking a significant degree of influence at all.
in
I would love to debate what and how much influence minorities should 'reflect' with you.
I think it should be proportionate to their cohort size and their use of legitimate avenues of exerting influence (such as by seeking election).
-
What's that got do with it?
No idea: but then you used the term 'Faragian', and I'm just noted that here is Scotland Farage isn't of any influence.
That's because your bias allows you to entertain such daft notions.
Nothing daft about recognising that Christianity is no longer a major influence: since if it was then Sex Marriage would still be illegal - and it isn't.
-
What if their structural and cultural influence is disproportionate to the size of their self-confessed believers? I'd say that would be an issue to the rest of us, and especially so if the rest of us are in the majority - for example, I can't see that the Church of England should expect to exert much influence here in Scotland any more than the Church of Scotland should expect to exert influence outwith Scotland, and in both cases whether they have cohorts sufficient to justify seeking a significant degree of influence at all.
in
I think it should be proportionate to their cohort size and their use of legitimate avenues of exerting influence (such as by seeking election).
Tell me Gordon. Do you see the church as some kind of political party or a culture waiting to replace or a culture that has hegemony?
-
Tell me Gordon. Do you see the church as some kind of political party or a culture waiting to replace or a culture that has hegemony?
The CofE already has a default role in politics: I rest my case.
-
The CofE already has a default role in politics: I rest my case.
You said that as if it is a bad thing. Obviously your atheism took you to heights of outrage mine never. Had I looked beyond the obvious fault of the HoL to how many C of E Lords were there I wouldn't begrudge them that paltry amount.
My position now should be well known by now, If your going to have an HoL then a slightly expanded Lords spiritual which encompasses world views seems reasonable.
Arise Lord Dawkins.
-
No idea: but then you used the term 'Faragian', and I'm just noted that here is Scotland Farage isn't of any influence.
Nothing daft about recognising that Christianity is no longer a major influence: since if it was then Sex Marriage would still be illegal - and it isn't.
Maybe but what's daft is your harbouring a weird wee fantasy that I have some kind of Block on that recognition.
If anything publicly professing atheists like yerself are grossly exaggerating the power and influence of the church.
-
Vlad,
If anything publicly professing atheists like yerself are grossly exaggerating the power and influence of the church.
Collective acts of worship in schools mandated by law, holiday dates determined by religious edict, buildings with models of a blood sacrifice on many street corners, open door media access, automatic places in the legislature...
...sounds pretty influential to me.
-
In the link in the OP it was noted that a couple of members in the HoL were arguing that the UK was a majority 'Christian' society based on the last census whereas other surveys show a decline in religious affiliation.
The census also shows religious affiliation declining rapidly too, just like other surveys with a more neutral question. The issue isn't the trend, but the absolute level. Asking the non-neutral census question adds about ten percentage points to the numbers of people who indicate they have a religious affiliation compared to a neutral question.
And why that is important is that the last census continued to suggest a majority christian population (59% in 2011, although massively down from 71% in 2001). I don't think a neutral survey (e.g. the British Social Attitudes survey) has come close to suggesting a christian majority for a long time, and typically shows a majority are non religious.
Surely it is better to have accurate information regarding the extent and detail of religiosity.
Absolutely - and you will only get accurate information if you ask the question in a neutral manner.
-
Maybe but what's daft is your harbouring a weird wee fantasy that I have some kind of Block on that recognition.
If anything publicly professing atheists like yerself are grossly exaggerating the power and influence of the church.
I'm a Scot, Vlad: as you know - would you care to explain why CofE clerics in the HoL can in any sense represent me (even if I was a Scottish theist). Or, perhaps, you could explain why the views of various clerics are regarded as being newsworthy when the views of the local chair of the local Scottish Country Dancing club (assuming there is one) seem to be less relevant for media coverage when moral and ethical issues are being discussed.
-
I'm a Scot, Vlad: as you know - would you care to explain why CofE clerics in the HoL can in any sense represent me (even if I was a Scottish theist). Or, perhaps, you could explain why the views of various clerics are regarded as being newsworthy when the views of the local chair of the local Scottish Country Dancing club (assuming there is one) seem to be less relevant for media coverage when moral and ethical issues are being discussed.
Probably they can represent you in the same way that a hereditary scottish lord can represent me, Or a Tory banker, or Richard Dawkins if he ever takes the ermine.
I see no link between the local chair of the local Scottish dancing club and a Bishop.
-
Vlad,
Collective acts of worship in schools mandated by law, holiday dates determined by religious edict, buildings with models of a blood sacrifice on many street corners, open door media access, automatic places in the legislature...
...sounds pretty influential to me.
Open door media access?........Tell on.
-
Probably they can represent you in the same way that a hereditary scottish lord can represent me, Or a Tory banker, or Richard Dawkins if he ever takes the ermine.
In what way could a CofE cleric represent me: I'm not a member of that club and I don't wish to be associated with their ideas and core purpose (of proselytising religious superstitions).
I see no link between the local chair of the local Scottish dancing club and a Bishop.
When it comes to having any moral authority, neither do I: that was my point.
-
In what way could a CofE cleric represent me:
I've already kind of answered that. The church isn't a ''club'' of the type you are talking about.
-
I've already kind of answered that. The church isn't a ''club'' of the type you are talking about.
I am not part of their constituency so they cannot presume to represent me: I presume the CofE have members - yes?
-
Humanists tell Non religious what they ought to put on the Census.
https://humanism.org.uk/2021/03/18/how-census-results-are-used-to-justify-discrimination-against-the-non-religious/
How is this not a complaint of persecution?
Telling people to be honest on their census form is complaining about persecution now is it?
Wow.
-
Telling people to be honest on their census form is complaining about persecution now is it?
Are you saying that people who only claim have some affiliation with a religion have been lying on the census?
As far as I can see the census questions obtain the information useful for planning and policy and those proposed by Humanist UK don't.
And I can see why because imho the humanist uk line of enquiry picks up merely what is intellectually and emotionally held rather than the practical connections people have with religion.
In other words when people say they are not religious that could cover up use of churches for baptisms, weddings and funerals, attendance at church events, use of church schools, use of church halls etc.
-
I am not part of their constituency so they cannot presume to represent me: I presume the CofE have members - yes?
As far as I know Peers do not represent constituencies.
-
As far as I know Peers do not represent constituencies.
You do know that 'constituency' has a meaning other than specified geographical areas for voting purposes?
-
Vlad,
Are you saying that people who only claim have some affiliation with a religion have been lying on the census?
No, he’s saying that the way the census is structured biases toward false positives.
As far as I can see the census questions obtain the information useful for planning and policy and those proposed by Humanist UK don't.
Then you’re not seeing clearly. The Humanist UK proposal would precisely give information useful for planning because that planning would be less likely to be justified by false positives
And I can see why because imho the humanist uk line of enquiry picks up merely what is intellectually and emotionally held rather than the practical connections people have with religion.
Gibberish. The Humanist UK “line of enquiry” is simply intended to enable the census to reflect more accurately the public’s religious beliefs (or lack of them).
In other words when people say they are not religious that could cover up use of churches for baptisms, weddings and funerals, attendance at church events, use of church schools, use of church halls etc.
No it wouldn’t. If the census authors wanted to know about the use of church buildings for some reason they could ask that question. That’s not what they do though – they actually ask about religious beliefs, and their results shape policies. And the problem with that of course is that someone with no religious convictions at all but who’d rather get married in a pretty church than a grim registry office would find himself part of the constituency used to justify faith schools, bishops in the HoL, legally mandated acts of worship in state schools etc.
-
You do know that 'constituency' has a meaning other than specified geographical areas for voting purposes?
And what do you mean by it? When someone is made a peer what constituency do they represent in your understanding?
-
Vlad,
No, he’s saying that the way the census is structured biases toward false positives.
Then you’re not seeing clearly. The Humanist UK proposal would precisely give information useful for planning because that planning would be less likely to be justified by false positives
Gibberish. The Humanist UK “line of enquiry” is simply intended to enable the census to reflect more accurately the public’s religious beliefs (or lack of them).
No it wouldn’t. If the census authors wanted to know about the use of church buildings for some reason they could ask that question. That’s not what they do though – they actually ask about religious beliefs, and their results shape policies. And the problem with that of course is that someone with no religious convictions at all but who’d rather get married in a pretty church than a grim registry office would find himself part of the constituency used to justify faith schools, bishops in the HoL, legally mandated acts of worship in state schools etc.
The Humanist proposals have been considered and found wanting for the reasons I have outlined. What I am getting from you is that there is some conspiracy going on. That is not the case.
It is obvious that to substitute belief as a focus would not be at all useful.
An all encompassing yet not entirely accurate term like Not religious though is extremely useful to the campaign aims of Humanist UK, powered in respect of the census as they are by R.Dawkins.
-
And what do you mean by it? When someone is made a peer what constituency do they represent in your understanding?
Read back, Vlad: my use of 'constituency' (in #32)was in response to your point about the church and, given your response, you clearly weren't aware that 'constituency' was a term that can have a meaning other than voting areas (see #36).
-
Read back, Vlad: my use of 'constituency' (in #32)was in response to your point about the church and, given your response, you clearly weren't aware that 'constituency' was a term that can have a meaning other than voting areas (see #36).
I'm not asking why you used it. I want to know what you mean by it, if not some kind of political constituency.
-
As far as I can see the census questions obtain the information useful for planning and policy and those proposed by Humanist UK don't.
As well-informed as you undoubtedly are, the opinion of well-established psephologists and professional bodies working in the area that the question on the census is not well-phrased and is likely to lead to an artificial inflation of the count of the religious is probably at least worthy of consideration.
And I can see why because imho the humanist uk line of enquiry picks up merely what is intellectually and emotionally held rather than the practical connections people have with religion.
Those 'practical connections' are a result of the continuation of religious influence through society in excess of its representation of actual believers - yes, that's exactly what's being targeted by Humanists UK.
In other words when people say they are not religious that could cover up use of churches for baptisms, weddings and funerals, attendance at church events, use of church schools, use of church halls etc.
Yes. Why are they having to use religious establishments for these sort of events - because the state doesn't invest in secular equivalents because they keep issuing census questions that over-inflate the relevance of religion and then allow the religious establishments to monopolise those areas of life. It's small-c conservative resistance to change, but the change is going to have to be accepted because it's happening regardless of whether it's being well measured or not.
O.
-
I'm not asking why you used it. I want to know what you mean by it, if not some kind of political constituency.
Are you especially dense today, Vlad, since you seem to have missed that I've made it clear (more than once) that my use of 'constituency' had noting to do with elections and voting. So here's what to do: look up a definition of 'constituency' and see if there is a usage that doesn't apply to voting and elections, and then consider how the non-voting usage could be applied to the 'church'.
-
As well-informed as you undoubtedly are, the opinion of well-established psephologists and professional bodies working in the area that the question on the census is not well-phrased and is likely to lead to an artificial inflation of the count of the religious is probably at least worthy of consideration.
I am aware that the inadequacies of this part of the census are known. I also understand that the suggestions from Humanist UK would have proven more inadequate for the purpose.
Those 'practical connections' are a result of the continuation of religious influence through society in excess of its representation of actual believers - yes, that's exactly what's being targeted by Humanists UK.
Yes the Humanists have a target which the ONS has decided is incompatible with it's own
Yes. Why are they having to use religious establishments for these sort of events - because the state doesn't invest in secular equivalents because they keep issuing census questions that over-inflate the relevance of religion and then allow the religious establishments to monopolise those areas of life. It's small-c conservative resistance to change, but the change is going to have to be accepted because it's happening regardless of whether it's being well measured or not.
I think your statement here exemplifies the difference in target between the Humanists UK and the ONS.
You are expressing a partisan view of how things should be not how things are. Secondly you seem to be completely discounting the fact that people might want their children Baptised. Might want their kids in church schools, might want a church wedding and a funeral.
Thirdly is it psephologists who work on census or do they work on voting? If I was a census questionnaire creator. Your target would I imagine look like a gripe which I couldn't satisfy.
-
Are you especially dense today, Vlad, since you seem to have missed that I've made it clear (more than once) that my use of 'constituency' had noting to do with elections and voting. So here's what to do: look up a definition of 'constituency' and see if there is a usage that doesn't apply to voting and elections, and then consider how the non-voting usage could be applied to the 'church'.
You are determined to get me to do your job aren't you.
-
You are determined to get me to do your job aren't you.
Not really: I already know what the term means when used other than in elections and voting (as does BHS - see #37) - you clearly don't.
-
Vlad,
The Humanist proposals have been considered and found wanting for the reasons I have outlined.
And that have been falsified. The “Humanist proposals” are intended to ensure that the census reports public attitudes more accurately than will be the case with a question biased toward false positives. Why are you opposed to a more accurate census?
What I am getting from you is that there is some conspiracy going on. That is not the case.
Whether the bias in the question is conscious or unconscious doesn’t matter much – it’s still bias.
It is obvious that to substitute belief as a focus would not be at all useful.
The census already asks about beliefs. The problem is that it’s framed in a way that’s biased against reflecting accurately the views of people without religious beliefs.
An all encompassing yet not entirely accurate term like Not religious though is extremely useful to the campaign aims of Humanist UK, powered in respect of the census as they are by R.Dawkins.
Bizarre. “None” simply says that the respondent has no religious beliefs. It’s “useful” in the sense that any other answers are useful – they tell us something about current beliefs and attitudes and that helps frame public policies better to reflect those beliefs and attitudes.
Why are you opposed to that?
-
The Humanist proposals have been considered and found wanting for the reasons I have outlined.
No they haven't - as far as I'm aware the only objection to the humanist suggestion for the census question is that there isn't enough space on the form.
Indeed the ONS seems to accept that their question is far from ideal - their justification is that it is the best they can think of that will fit into the space available (space which isn't sufficient to allow a neutral yes/no initial question, followed by a subsidiary question for those that answer yes to 'do you have a religious belief?').
So both accuracy and fairness are sacrificed on the altar of space on the form. In a way fair enough if we are trying to save the planet by wasting less trees on a paper form. But as far as I'm aware everyone is now encouraged to fill in the census on-line, with paper forms now only available on request. So the 2021 must be massively less impactful on the planet in terms of physical forms and surely that should permit a slightly longer but more accurate and less biased question to be asked.
-
No they haven't - as far as I'm aware the only objection to the humanist suggestion for the census question is that there isn't enough space on the form.
Indeed the ONS seems to accept that their question is far from ideal - their justification is that it is the best they can think of that will fit into the space available (space which isn't sufficient to allow a neutral yes/no initial question, followed by a subsidiary question for those that answer yes to 'do you have a religious belief?').
So both accuracy and fairness are sacrificed on the altar of space on the form. In a way fair enough if we are trying to save the planet by wasting fewer trees on paper form. But as far as I'm aware everyone is now encouraged to fill in the census on-line, with paper forms now only available on request. So the 2021 must be massively less impactful on the planet in terms of physical forms and surely that should permit a slightly longer but more accurate and less biased question to be asked.
Sorry, but I am a little baffled by the highlighted comment as I was under the impression, from the letter I have received and as noted by you, that the Census form was available on the internet - which would seem to have no limit in the size or the number of questions and answers.
Owlswing
)O(
-
Sorry, but I am a little baffled by the highlighted comment as I was under the impression, from the letter I have received and as noted by you, that the Census form was available on the internet - which would seem to have no limit in the size or the number of questions and answers.
Owlswing
)O(
P S - Or have they had thousands of Vlads complaining that it is unChristian to change the question at the behest of non-Christian humanists?
Owlswing
)O(
-
Sorry, but I am a little baffled by the highlighted comment as I was under the impression, from the letter I have received and as noted by you, that the Census form was available on the internet - which would seem to have no limit in the size or the number of questions and answers.
Owlswing
)O(
Yes you are right - it is complete nonsense, but the ONS decision is largely based on the amount of space the question takes up on a paper form. This from the official report of the ONS on decision making for the question (with my emphasis).
'The testing concluded that the question “What is your religion?” best met the requirement of collecting good quality data on religious affiliation within the space constraints of the census questionnaire.'
And in the official report leading up to the 2011 census the ONS indicated that there wasn't enough space for two questions on religion, therefore ruling out any neutral yes/no starting question with a follow-up question for those that answer yes to 'Do you have a religious belief' or equivalent neutral starter-for-ten.
-
'The testing concluded that the question “What is your religion?” best met the requirement of collecting good quality data on religious affiliation within the space constraints of the census questionnaire.'
-
Vlad,
'The testing concluded that the question “What is your religion?” best met the requirement of collecting good quality data on religious affiliation within the space constraints of the census questionnaire.'
The question "have you stopped beating your wife yet? (Y/N)" best meets the requirement of telling me about your wife beating habits within the space constraints of my questionnaire.
So that's all right then right?
-
have they had thousands of Vlads complaining that it is unChristian to change the question at the behest of non-Christian humanists?
Owlswing
I'm rather amused by the idea of you calling religious people ''Vlads.'' The boring reality of this issue is that it is the Humanists who are complaining here.
-
Vlad,
I'm rather amused by the idea of you calling religious people ''Vlads.'' The boring reality of this issue is that it is the Humanists who are complaining here.
Actually the boring reality is that there are people here who think that more accurate data is more useful than less accurate data, but hey...
-
Vlad,
Actually the boring reality is that there are people here who think that more accurate data is more useful than less accurate data, but hey...
I would take that to the ONS who disagree that that is what you are doing with respect to the census rather than take the failure of Dawkins and Copson, Watson et al out on little old me.
-
Vlad,
I would take that to the ONS who disagree that that is what you are doing with respect to the census rather than take the failure of Dawkins and Copson, Watson et al out on little old me.
Little old you is the one pushing the notion that asking a question biased toward false positives because of space constraints on the form is a good idea, so you're the one being corrected on this forum.
-
Vlad,
Little old you is the one pushing the notion that asking a question biased toward false positives because of space constraints on the form is a good idea, so you're the one being corrected on this forum.
I'm afraid I rather trust the consideration of the ONS in their judgment of what Humanist UK are after.
Perhaps of more concern than me conveying that is the comparisons and preference for the British social attitudes survey expressed by Humanist UK. I have never received anything from them, whereas everyone hears from the census. Documents for planning policy are more dependent on census information than any indices of Attitude. Preference for the survey then is to prefer something less accurate than the census aside from them being two different things.
Once again majoring on beliefs misses actual affiliation....as has been pointed out by the ONS.
-
Vlad,
I'm afraid I rather trust the consideration of the ONS in their judgment of what Humanist UK are after.
What is it that you think the ONS claims humanists to be “after”?
Perhaps of more concern than me conveying that is the comparisons and preference for the British social attitudes survey expressed by Humanist UK. I have never received anything from them, whereas everyone hears from the census. Documents for planning policy are more dependent on census information than any indices of Attitude. Preference for the survey then is to prefer something less accurate than the census aside from them being two different things.
What on earth are you trying to say in that dog’s breakfast of a comment? Census results inform social policy; the framing of one question in particular on the census form is biased towards false positives, apparently becasue of space constraints.
Why is that a good idea?
Once again majoring on beliefs misses actual affiliation....as has been pointed out by the ONS.
Once again, no it doesn’t for the reasons that have been explained to you but you continue to ignore.
PS You didn’t answer my question “have you stopped beating your wife yet? (Y/N)”. Why is that?
-
The question 'What is your religion?' seems like a leading question, since it treats the answer 'None' as being part of the same paradigm as is, say, 'Christianity': and that is clearly wrong since 'None' isn't a choice of religion.
Perhaps using a little more paper is justified so as to avoid suspect data, which would be the case if religious affiliation is over-estimated.
-
The question 'What is your religion?' seems like a leading question, since it treats the answer 'None' as being part of the same paradigm as is, say, 'Christianity': and that is clearly wrong since 'None' isn't a choice of religion.
Perhaps using a little more paper is justified so as to avoid suspect data, which would be the case if religious affiliation is over-estimated.
But you are missing the point which is that the ONS state that the humanist formulations and definitions are different to those which the ONS are using.
So for instance Humanists are not interested in whether people attend church or see themselves as cultural christians but whether they truly believe in whatever religion. That is of interest to evangelicals and humanists but it is not what the ONS regard as defining affiliation. The Humanists have an agenda and it doesn't match with the ONS.
As I said, the Humanist definitions are too belief focussed for what the ONS need.
The ONS acknowledge imperfection but classify other formulations less optimal.
As to the performance of people on here........strong on humanist polemic and the ideal of no religion, weak on challenging the ONS formulations and their justifications.
-
What is it that you think the ONS claims humanists to be “after”?
He doesn't think that they are "after" anything! What he is after is being a non-stop wind-up merchant trying to find out just how long he can shovel tons and tons of meaningless bull-shit before everyone else decides to totally ignore him and his religious bullshittery!
PS You didn’t answer my question “have you stopped beating your wife yet? (Y/N)”. Why is that?
Of course, he didn't answer your question! The answer is simple. HE doesn't beat his wife! SHE beats the crap out of him because she is just as fed up with his religious bull-shit as many here are! And the sooner he hies himself off to a monastery the better for all concerned - and an end to a stream of bloody stupid pseudonyms!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Vlad,
What is it that you think the ONS claims humanists to be “after”?
This article is very informative on that subject. The author though is a bit on the '' It's an Establishment conspiracy'' side and makes IMHO a bit of a ''slippery slope'' argument involving Farage co-opting religion....(Actually he managed to co-opt a whole country). It's clear though that Humanist UK and ONS are after two separate things.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/census-2021-form-uk-filling-out-questions-religion-918218
-
Are you saying that people who only claim have some affiliation with a religion have been lying on the census?
Yes if the claim is false.
As far as I can see the census questions obtain the information useful for planning and policy and those proposed by Humanist UK don't.
I thought we were talking about answering "no religion" if you have no religion, not changing the census, which is a bit late now.
In other words when people say they are not religious that could cover up use of churches for baptisms, weddings and funerals, attendance at church events, use of church schools, use of church halls etc.
You're not religious just because you go to a baptism or funeral in a church. You, of all people, should know the difference between The Church and churches.
-
Sorry, but I am a little baffled by the highlighted comment as I was under the impression, from the letter I have received and as noted by you, that the Census form was available on the internet - which would seem to have no limit in the size or the number of questions and answers.
Owlswing
)O(
But it's also available as a paper form if you don't want to, or can't, fill it in on line.
-
Yes if the claim is false.
I thought we were talking about answering "no religion" if you have no religion, not changing the census, which is a bit late now.
If you read Dunt the aim of the census is to collect cultural information which can be put to policy use. It is also for self identification. When people say they have no religion, is that a) strictly true in the sense of cultural and affiliative information or just to the belief aspect ? If the latter then that is not as useful for the purposes of the ONS.You're not religious just because you go to a baptism or funeral in a church. You, of all people, should know the difference between The Church and churches.
I'm perfectly aware, Jeremy, of that but the ONS aren't really bothered about Body of Christ , apostolic or any other theology or even the notion that non belief should mean the end of any identification with religion as culture and practice but the ONS are interested in the other two aspects of religious affiliation that Dunt talks about.
-
Vlad,
This article is very informative on that subject. The author though is a bit on the '' It's an Establishment conspiracy'' side and makes IMHO a bit of a ''slippery slope'' argument involving Farage co-opting religion....(Actually he managed to co-opt a whole country). It's clear though that Humanist UK and ONS are after two separate things.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/census-2021-form-uk-filling-out-questions-religion-918218
Have you actually read the article? It sets out exactly the problem – a question biased toward false positives about beliefs (rather than about just cultural affiliation) will justify unwarranted belief-based policies. Are you seriously suggesting that there won’t be those who will use the results to claim “see, we’re still a Christian country” when many ticking the CofE (or whichever) box won’t have the beliefs part at all?
Asking the question neutrally (eg, “Do you have religious beliefs? If yes, go to question 2; if no, skip question 2”) produces a very different picture of the religiosity of the respondents. That’s the point.
-
If you read Dunt the aim of the census is to collect cultural information which can be put to policy use. It is also for self identification. When people say they have no religion, is that a) strictly true in the sense of cultural and affiliative information or just to the belief aspect ? If the latter then that is not as useful for the purposes of the ONS.
What good is it for the government to know that I still occasionally go to church? The government isn't responsible for building churches (or mosques, temples and synagogues). If they are looking for a cultural picture of England and Wales, I don't see anything wrong with the current question and answering it truthfully.
I'm perfectly aware, Jeremy, of that but the ONS aren't really bothered about Body of Christ , apostolic or any other theology or even the notion that non belief should mean the end of any identification with religion as culture and practice but the ONS are interested in the other two aspects of religious affiliation that Dunt talks about.
They are bothered about who is a Christian (Muslim, Sikh, Jew, Hindu, not religious etc). I am not a Christian. If I answered Christian or CodE on the census, it would be a lie, despite the fact that I have been to church a number of times in the last year and still help out at my parents' church summer fete. What was it your Bible said about bearing false witness?
-
Vlad,
I'm perfectly aware, Jeremy, of that but the ONS aren't really bothered about Body of Christ , apostolic or any other theology…
Then they should be if the results of their poorly framed question will be used to justify public policies that have theology at their heart.
-
Vlad,
Have you actually read the article? It sets out exactly the problem – a question biased toward false positives about beliefs (rather than about just cultural affiliation) will justify unwarranted belief-based policies. Are you seriously suggesting that there won’t be those who will use the results to claim “see, we’re still a Christian country” when many ticking the CofE (or whichever) box won’t have the beliefs part at all?
Asking the question neutrally (eg, “Do you have religious beliefs? If yes, go to question 2; if no, skip question 2”) produces a very different picture of the religiosity of the respondents. That’s the point.
|Well this is interesting
In 2001, the Muslim Council of Britain wanted a better sense of how many Muslims there were in Britain. You can’t really do it with ethnicity data because Muslims come from all over the world – Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Africa and elsewhere. So they pushed for a question on religion in the census and the New Labour government agreed.
I did not realise that, in previous censuses, the question wasn't even asked. This whole thing is beginning to look like a pissing contest between the Muslims and the Christians to see who has the most followers. Vlad is just trying to drum up the numbers for his side.
-
I did not realise that, in previous censuses, the question wasn't even asked. This whole thing is beginning to look like a pissing contest between the Muslims and the Christians to see who has the most followers. Vlad is just trying to drum up the numbers for his side.
Especially in the way that the number of people professing to be Christian seems to be falling by the month!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Vlad,
Have you actually read the article? It sets out exactly the problem – a question biased toward false positives about beliefs (rather than about just cultural affiliation) will justify unwarranted belief-based policies. Are you seriously suggesting that there won’t be those who will use the results to claim “see, we’re still a Christian country” when many ticking the CofE (or whichever) box won’t have the beliefs part at all?
Asking the question neutrally (eg, “Do you have religious beliefs? If yes, go to question 2; if no, skip question 2”) produces a very different picture of the religiosity of the respondents. That’s the point.
I have read the article....and I think it very informative about why we have wound up where we are namely the ONS interested in self identification and cultural and practical aspects rather than the almost similar interest of evangelicals and Humanists namely beliefs. The ONS have decided that this information is of less utility to them.
They are less interested in the issue of unbelief or vague theistic belief equals no religion than what people self identify with.
So I'm afraid what you say is ''The point'',............Isn't.
-
|Well this is interesting
I did not realise that, in previous censuses, the question wasn't even asked. This whole thing is beginning to look like a pissing contest between the Muslims and the Christians to see who has the most followers. Vlad is just trying to drum up the numbers for his side.
For me, getting more people to be cultural christians has no meaning and does not make one saved.
Surely the point is that it in this context it is the non believers that are trying to drum up numbers for their side and the beef is that their focus on beliefs rather than the cultural and practice aspects isn't shared by the ONS who are less interested in a creating Humanist paradise on Earth.......which has religious overtones anyway.
-
Vlad,
I have read the article....and I think it very informative about why we have wound up where we are namely the ONS interested in self identification and cultural and practical aspects rather than the almost similar interest of evangelicals and Humanists namely beliefs. The ONS have decided that this information is of less utility to them.
They are less interested in the issue of unbelief or vague theistic belief equals no religion than what people self identify with.
If you have read it then you will have seen this part then:
“When it came to the actual contents of the Christian faith – the “belief” part of religion – the results plummeted. Just 34 per cent said it was because they “believe in the teachings of Christianity”. Only 27 per cent said they “believe that Jesus Christ was a real person who died and came back to life, and was the son of God”. When it came to practice, the numbers fell even further. Most people who ticked Christian either never attended a place of worship or did so less than once a year.
This is why conservative politicians and religious leaders love the census question. They know it is intended to provide data on cultural self-identification. But they can misuse it to make an argument about belief.
“These results confirm that we remain a faithful nation,” Arun Arora, former director of communications for the Archbishop’s Council, said after the 2011 Census. Religious authorities then used the data to demand continued religious programming on the BBC and government support for church buildings and faith schools. It’s deployed to set patterns of provision of state-funded pastoral care and make decisions about the school syllabus.”
So I'm afraid what you say is ''The point'',............Isn't.
Yes it is – see above.
-
Vlad,
For me, getting more people to be cultural christians has no meaning and does not make one saved.
Leaving aside the “saved” idiocy, the “for me” is irrelevant. What you would do with the data (false positives included) is neither here nor there – it’s what policy makers will do with that matters.
Surely the point is that it in this context it is the non believers that are trying to drum up numbers for their side…
Er no, it’s just counting. What “non-believers” actually want is for the census to record the facts accurately, and for policy-makers to act on that basis rather than on the false story the current framing of the question produces.
…and the beef is that their focus on beliefs rather than the cultural and practice aspects isn't shared by the ONS who are less interested in a creating Humanist paradise on Earth.......which has religious overtones anyway.
Gibberish. Which part of “the census should be more accurate rather than less accurate” is it that you object to?
-
No they haven't - as far as I'm aware the only objection to the humanist suggestion for the census question is that there isn't enough space on the form.
This is bizarre - I've just looked at my paper form and question 16 (for each person) "What is your religion?" is followed by question 17 "This question is intentionally left blank" - followed by about 4cm of blank space (more than enough for a single tick box for a "Do you have a religious belief?" question). The claim that there isn't enough space is clearly false.
-
Vlad,
Leaving aside the “saved” idiocy, the “for me” is irrelevant. What you would do with the data (false positives included) is neither here nor there – it’s what policy makers will do with that matters.
Er no, it’s just counting. What “non-believers” actually want is for the census to record the facts accurately, and for policy-makers to act on that basis rather than on the false story the current framing of the question produces.
Gibberish. Which part of “the census should be more accurate rather than less accurate” is it that you object to?
But what the Humanist and you presumably want reported accurately isn't what the ONS want. In fact it would affect the accuracy for what they are looking for.
To believe the Humanists are merely after accuracy is IMV incredibly Naive since it is there aim to find a statistic they believe will change society in a particular way.
That is opposite to a census which is more of a snapshot of how the country is. Not how a group think it should ideally be.
-
This is bizarre - I've just looked at my paper form and question 16 (for each person) "What is your religion?" is followed by question 17 "This question is intentionally left blank" - followed by about 4cm of blank space (more than enough for a single tick box for a "Do you have a religious belief?" question). The claim that there isn't enough space is clearly false.
This could either mean that humanists were about to get lucky, are going to be lucky or it's someone in the ONS mischieviously rubbing salt into the frustration of Humanists by saying a blank space makes more sense than the question Humanists want.....or something else.
-
Vlad,
But what the Humanist and you presumably want reported accurately isn't what the ONS want. In fact it would affect the accuracy for what they are looking for.
What the ONS want is what they’re told to want. The point though is what policy makers would do with the data a false positive biased question produces.
To believe the Humanists are merely after accuracy is IMV incredibly Naive since it is there aim to find a statistic they believe will change society in a particular way.
Whether and how humanists would like to change society is neither here nor there for the purpose of accurate data gathering. Either you think theology-based policy (“…to demand continued religious programming on the BBC and government support for church buildings and faith schools…to set patterns of provision of state-funded pastoral care and make decisions about the school syllabus” etc) should be justified by accurate data or you don’t.
Why don’t you?
That is opposite to a census which is more of a snapshot of how the country is. Not how a group think it should ideally be.
Why are you doing this to yourself? A “snapshot of how the country is” should be how it actually is, not how certain politicical and clerical policy makers would like it to be by relying a biased questionnaire response for their justification.
-
Vlad,
If you have read it then you will have seen this part then:
“When it came to the actual contents of the Christian faith – the “belief” part of religion – the results plummeted. Just 34 per cent said it was because they “believe in the teachings of Christianity”. Only 27 per cent said they “believe that Jesus Christ was a real person who died and came back to life, and was the son of God”. When it came to practice, the numbers fell even further. Most people who ticked Christian either never attended a place of worship or did so less than once a year.
This is why conservative politicians and religious leaders love the census question. They know it is intended to provide data on cultural self-identification. But they can misuse it to make an argument about belief.
“These results confirm that we remain a faithful nation,” Arun Arora, former director of communications for the Archbishop’s Council, said after the 2011 Census. Religious authorities then used the data to demand continued religious programming on the BBC and government support for church buildings and faith schools. It’s deployed to set patterns of provision of state-funded pastoral care and make decisions about the school syllabus.”
Im sorry.....I thought I had made it clear I felt this was part of the Dunt piece that was more humanistUK conspiracy theory than relevant to the ONS view.
-
Vlad,
Im sorry.....I thought I had made it clear I felt this was part of the Dunt piece that was more humanistUK conspiracy theory than relevant to the ONS view.
How you "feel" about that is neither here nor there. He set out the arguments, and gave examples of the same phenomenon after the previous census. Do you have any arguments to falsify that, or is your feeling about it all you have?
Again: data is data, and it should be recorded accurately. The agendas of those who would then make policy arguments relying on that data is a second order issue.
-
Vlad,
What the ONS want is what they’re told to want. The point though is what policy makers would do with the data a false positive biased question produces.
Whether and how humanists would like to change society is neither here nor there for the purpose of accurate data gathering. Either you think theology-based policy (“…to demand continued religious programming on the BBC and government support for church buildings and faith schools…to set patterns of provision of state-funded pastoral care and make decisions about the school syllabus” etc) should be justified by accurate data or you don’t.
Why don’t you?
Why are you doing this to yourself? A “snapshot of how the country is” should be how it actually is, not how certain politicical and clerical policy makers would like it to be by relying a biased questionnaire response for their justification.
Accurate data about what? Do you think a low level of religious beliefs demands a legislated policy of ignorance of them? You are surely talking about the clever excision of any affiliation to religion
I think on this matter Humanist UK are hypocritically criticising others for trying to somehow interfere and skew policy making by exercising a fantasy view of Britain as an oppressive theocracy.
I think you'll find also that the goals of Humanism UK are doctrine rather than scientifically and statistically based.
I'm afraid ONS haven't accepted that.
Frankly I find the suggestion that some people who culturally identify they are religiously affiliated are fooled poor hoodwinked suckers who need enlighted by celebs and scientists rather patronising. How about you?
-
Vlad,
Accurate data about what? Do you think a low level of religious beliefs demands a legislated policy of ignorance of them? You are surely talking about the clever excision of any affiliation to religion
Bizarre. Accurate data about religious beliefs, obviously. If you’re going to frame beliefs-based public policy and rely on what people believe to justify it, then you need know what it is that people do believe.
This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp.
I think on this matter Humanist UK are hypocritically criticising others for trying to somehow interfere and skew policy making by exercising a fantasy view of Britain as an oppressive theocracy.
Why are you so frightened of accurate rather than inaccurate data being used to frame public policy?
I think you'll find also that the goals of Humanism UK are doctrine rather than scientifically and statistically based.
Again, you can make whatever claims you like about “goals”. None of them are relevant though. If policy makers want to frame policies justified by what people believe then – regardless of what those policy makers’ goals may be – they should do so on the basis of accurate data about what those beliefs are.
Why would anyone disagree?
I'm afraid ONS haven't accepted that.
The ONS have accepted what they’ve been told to accept, and your paranoid fantasies about the humanist “goals” have no relevance to that.
Frankly I find the suggestion that some people who culturally identify they are religiously affiliated are fooled poor hoodwinked suckers who need enlighted by celebs and scientists rather patronising. How about you?
Except of course the data tells you that very different answers can be obtained if the question is put differently. It’s called framing bias, and it has nothing to do with the intelligence of the respondents. There’s a famous case study for example of oncologists being asked whether they’d opt for chemo or for surgery when the former has a 10% mortality rate and the latter a 90% survival rate. They second group were then asked the same question with the outcomes swapped. The two groups both biased heavily toward the 90% survival rate options, even though “10% mortality” and “90% survival” mean the same thing. Why? Because “survival” has positive connotations and “mortality” has negative connotations.
Would you say those highly trained and qualified oncologists were “poor hoodwinked suckers who need enlighted” (sic)?
Why not?
-
Why are you so frightened of accurate rather than inaccurate data being used to frame public policy?
Because accurate data will show the steady and continuing decline in the number of people who classify themselves as Christian as they have discovered, some via this Forum, I have no doubt, as to just how much of the church's teaching is nonsense from a book full of inaccuracies and other rubbish!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Vlad,
Bizarre. Accurate data about religious beliefs,
But the Census doesn't ask about ''religious beliefs'' but religion and that is based on a premise that religion is threefold Cultural, belief and praxis and of that Belief matters least. So what you are asking is for the ONS to change it's methodology to suit your criteria and to focus on the vaguest and least quantifiable and significant aspect in terms of policy to the exclusion of all else as evidenced by your focus on religious beliefs..............Good luck with that one old chap.
Since this means you are effectively debunked I see no profit in further rebutting the rebuttals.
Good Day.
-
Vlad,
But the Census doesn't ask about ''religious beliefs'' but religion and that is based on a premise that religion is threefold Cultural, belief and praxis and of that Belief matters least.
Groan. Yes I know it doesn’t – that’s the point FFS! If you want to frame belief-based public policies and rely on what people believe to justify them, then you should know what people believe.
Even for you this shouldn’t he hard to grasp should it?
So what you are asking is for the ONS to change it's methodology to suit your criteria and to focus on the vaguest and least quantifiable and significant aspect in terms of policy to the exclusion of all else as evidenced by your focus on religious beliefs..............Good luck with that one old chap.
No, I’m asking them to change their methodology because their current one is biased towards false positives that (if the previous census is anything to go by) will then be used to justify policy-making that isn’t in fact justified at all.
Again, even for you this shouldn’t he hard to grasp should it?
Since this means you are effectively debunked…
Ignoring or misrepresenting the arguments that undo you isn’t debunking them. You of all people should know this by now.
I see no profit in further rebutting the rebuttals.
That “further” is a lie – not only have you not rebutted anything, nor have you bothered even trying to.
Good Day.
As ever, you just scuttle away when you've run out of road. Oh well - 'twas ever thus.
So, as you’re still defending the indefensible I’ll ask you again on the same basis: have you stopped beating your wife yet? A simple Y/N will do. (Sorry I didn't ask you first whether you've ever been a wife beater - I didn't have space on my form.)
-
From the Guardian, which has a screenshot of the on-line page. We, in Scotland, have our census next year.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/20/less-that-half-of-britons-expected-to-tick-christian-in-uk-census
-
From the Guardian, which has a screenshot of the on-line page. We, in Scotland, have our census next year.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/20/less-that-half-of-britons-expected-to-tick-christian-in-uk-census
Is it me or is it getting a bit argumentum ad populum in here?
-
Is it me or is it getting a bit argumentum ad populum in here?
It's probably you: it usually is.
-
Vlad,
s it me or is it getting a bit argumentum ad populum in here?
It's you.
-
This is bizarre - I've just looked at my paper form and question 16 (for each person) "What is your religion?" is followed by question 17 "This question is intentionally left blank" - followed by about 4cm of blank space (more than enough for a single tick box for a "Do you have a religious belief?" question). The claim that there isn't enough space is clearly false.
That would be quite error prone. Suppose somebody ticks "no" for "do you have a religion?" and then ticks CofE in the list. It would render that data point useless.
-
This is bizarre - I've just looked at my paper form and question 16 (for each person) "What is your religion?" is followed by question 17 "This question is intentionally left blank" - followed by about 4cm of blank space (more than enough for a single tick box for a "Do you have a religious belief?" question). The claim that there isn't enough space is clearly false.
Might be because the NI form has another question there (apparently on religious upbringing)?
-
That would be quite error prone. Suppose somebody ticks "no" for "do you have a religion?" and then ticks CofE in the list. It would render that data point useless.
The paper census form (it's obviously not a problem for the online version) is full of questions like that with instructions to "Go to question x" next to one of the options because the next question(s) are irrelevant if that is your answer. For example, you can tick that you own your property outright and then answer the "Who is your landlord?" question.
-
jeremy,
That would be quite error prone. Suppose somebody ticks "no" for "do you have a religion?" and then ticks CofE in the list. It would render that data point useless.
Couldn't the solution be something like:
1. Do you identify as having a religious faith (Y/N)? If N, ignore Q2 and go to Q3
2. With which religious faith do you most identify:
- Christian
- Muslim etc
- Other (please indicate which other faith here)
The problem otherwise is that it's already error prone because it's biased toward false positives for religious belief.
-
jeremy,
Couldn't the solution be something like:
1. Do you identify as having a religious faith (Y/N)? If N, ignore Q2 and go to Q3
2. With which religious faith do you most identify:
- Christian
- Muslim etc
- Other (please indicate which other faith here)
The problem otherwise is that it's already error prone because it's biased toward false positives for religious belief.
Would question 1 be voluntary?
Also to meet the goal of yielding policy.e. g.satisfying humanist demands for active dismantling of privileges question 3 would need to establish whether you were a humanist.
"No information" would not distinguish between a laissez faire attitude or a hard arsed disestablishment position.
-
Vlad,
Would question 1 be voluntary?
Census questions aren’t voluntary unless the form says so.
Also to meet the goal of yielding policy.e. g.satisfying humanist demands for active dismantling of privileges question 3 would need to establish whether you were a humanist.
Don’t be silly. The only “humanist demand” here is that the census’s religious affiliation question be framed to minimise the chances of false positives. Why would you not share the goal of minimising false positives, regardless of the subject matter?
"No information" would not distinguish between a laissez faire attitude or a hard arsed disestablishment position.
Gibberish.
-
Vlad,
Census questions aren’t voluntary unless the form says so.
Don’t be silly. The only “humanist demand” here is that the census’s religious affiliation question be framed to minimise the chances of false positives. Why would you not share the goal of minimising false positives, regardless of the subject matter?
Gibberish.
All replies here are non sequitur.
-
Vlad,
All replies here are non sequitur.
None of them are, presumably because you don't know what "non sequitur" means.
Your basic mistake here is to conflate the goal (minimising of false positives) with the agenda (real or imagined) of the people arguing for it. Arguing that there should be as few false positives as reasonably possible stands alone as an objective - whether the people arguing for that are humanists, Zoroastrians, flat-earthers or the local knitting circle has no relevance at all to that.
-
Vlad,
None of them are, presumably because you don't know what "non sequitur" means.
Your basic mistake here is to conflate the goal (minimising of false positives) with the agenda (real or imagined) of the people arguing for it. Arguing that there should be as few false positives as reasonably possible stands alone as an objective - whether the people arguing for that are humanists, Zoroastrians, flat-earthers or the local knitting circle has no relevance at all to that.
Apart from the fact that the ONS would consider your suggestions in the light of whether it will fulfil their requirements for data gathering and in the light of the humanist goal of yielding accurate information for policies in line with their goals, I am truly sorry for getting involved in your game of Fantasy Census question setting.
-
Vlad,
Why have you just ignored the correction I gave you? Oh well, ‘twas ever thus I guess.
Apart from the fact that the ONS would consider your suggestions in the light of whether it will fulfil their requirements for data gathering…
Again, the ONS does what it’s told to do. The point though is what others would do with false positives to justify their subsequent faith-based policies.
…and in the light of the humanist goal of yielding accurate information for policies in line with their goals,…
Again, whether or not more accurate data would be in line with their goals is neither here nor there. More accurate data is a desirable outcome in its own right. Why would you disagree with that?
I am truly sorry for getting involved in your game of Fantasy Census question setting.
I was just explaining to you how and why your pro-religious bias is causing you to defend the indefensible, albeit dishonestly and evasively.
Look, I’ll try again: do you think it’s better for the census to produce more accurate data or less accurate data?
-
Vlad,
Why have you just ignored the correction I gave you? Oh well, ‘twas ever thus I guess.
Again, the ONS does what it’s told to do. The point though is what others would do with false positives to justify their subsequent faith-based policies.
Again, whether or not more accurate data would be in line with their goals is neither here nor there. More accurate data is a desirable outcome in its own right. Why would you disagree with that?
I was just explaining to you how and why your pro-religious bias is causing you to defend the indefensible, albeit dishonestly and evasively.
Look, I’ll try again: do you think it’s better for the census to produce more accurate data or less accurate data?
The ONS do what they are told but not obviously by people like yourself. This is probably because your wording does not yield relevant information and therefore it matters not if irrelevant information is collected accurately.
-
Vlad,
The ONS do what they are told but not obviously by people like yourself.
Meaning?
This...
What's "this"?
... is probably because your wording does not yield relevant information and therefore it matters not if irrelevant information is collected accurately.
Utterly incomprehensible. Did that mean something in your head when you typed it?
I'll try again: do you think it’s better for the census to produce more accurate data or less accurate data?
It's a simple enough question isn't it?
-
The problem otherwise is that it's already error prone because it's biased toward false positives for religious belief.
So you say, but I had no trouble reading the question and selecting "no religion" from the options displayed to me.
The question, as stated, is a bit ambiguous and I can't criticise Vlad too harshly because I can sort of see his point of view. I stopped believing in God when I was twenty, but I carried on regarding myself as being in the C of E for several years after that. If C of E had been an option in the 1991 census, I might have ticked that option, instead of "no religion".
Given the alleged origin of the question, maybe a better one would have been "Are you a Muslim?"
-
Jeremy,
So you say, but I had no trouble reading the question and selecting "no religion" from the options displayed to me.
No doubt, but lots of people it seems do. This from the article Vlad linked to:
“A recent YouGov poll for Humanists UK asked respondents the same religion question as the census and then fired off additional inquiries to those who selected Christian. Fifty-nine per cent said they selected it because they were christened. Forty four per cent said it was because one of their parents was Christian. Clearly many thought of it as a cultural category.
When it came to the actual contents of the Christian faith – the “belief” part of religion – the results plummeted. Just 34 per cent said it was because they “believe in the teachings of Christianity”. Only 27 per cent said they “believe that Jesus Christ was a real person who died and came back to life, and was the son of God”. When it came to practice, the numbers fell even further. Most people who ticked Christian either never attended a place of worship or did so less than once a year.”
The point here is first that the way a question is framed heavily influences the answer it produces, and second that policy makers will rely on the false positives the census as it’s currently framed will give them to justify all sorts of things that in fact many people who ticked "CofE" or whatever would not agree to if the question had been asked more neutrally.
The question, as stated, is a bit ambiguous…
It’s worse than that. The evidence suggests that it will significantly distort the accuracy of the data it provides.
…and I can't criticise Vlad too harshly because I can sort of see his point of view.
I can. He’s arguing that less accurate data is better than more accurate data provided the former happens to justify his faith views.
That’s a bad argument I think.
I stopped believing in God when I was twenty, but I carried on regarding myself as being in the C of E for several years after that. If C of E had been an option in the 1991 census, I might have ticked that option, instead of "no religion".
Yes, but the point here is this: on the basis of the data the census is biased toward producing, would "cultural religionists" (for want of a better term – ie people who like the buildings, the music etc but don't believe any of the faith's various tenets to be true) also be content to be part of the constituency then used to justify policies on faith schools, on gay adoption, on clerics by right in the legislature etc?
Given the alleged origin of the question, maybe a better one would have been "Are you a Muslim?"
Only if you’d been asked first, “do you have religious beliefs?”
Imagine that, say, the gov’t wanted to build a football stadium in every town and to justify that policy had on the census the question “Which sport interests you the most? Football? Tennis? Cricket?" etc and when, say, 51% said “football” (because they had even less interest in the other sports, or their Dad was a Spurs fan, or football was the sport most played at their school etc) they used that 51% to justify building the stadia.
Now imagine instead that the Census asked. “Do you have any interest in sport? If “No”, ignore the next question”, and this time the next question (about which sports respondents are interested in) had only 25% tick “Football?”
That’s the point here. Questions biased towards false positives (no matter what the subject) will be used to justify policies that wouldn’t see the light of day without those false positives.
Vlad it seems favours that provided the false positives justify policies geared toward his religious beliefs, though my guess is that he’d be less keen on policies made on the same basis in any other area of public life.
-
Jeremy,
No doubt, but lots of people it seems do. This from the article Vlad linked to:
“A recent YouGov poll for Humanists UK asked respondents the same religion question as the census and then fired off additional inquiries to those who selected Christian. Fifty-nine per cent said they selected it because they were christened. Forty four per cent said it was because one of their parents was Christian. Clearly many thought of it as a cultural category.
When it came to the actual contents of the Christian faith – the “belief” part of religion – the results plummeted. Just 34 per cent said it was because they “believe in the teachings of Christianity”. Only 27 per cent said they “believe that Jesus Christ was a real person who died and came back to life, and was the son of God”. When it came to practice, the numbers fell even further. Most people who ticked Christian either never attended a place of worship or did so less than once a year.”
The point here is first that the way a question is framed heavily influences the answer it produces, and second that policy makers will rely on the false positives the census as it’s currently framed will give them to justify all sorts of things that in fact many people who ticked "CofE" or whatever would not agree to if the question had been asked more neutrally.
It’s worse than that. The evidence suggests that it will significantly distort the accuracy of the data it provides.
I can. He’s arguing that less accurate data is better than more accurate data provided the former happens to justify his faith views.
That’s a bad argument I think.
Yes, but the point here is this: on the basis of the data the census is biased toward producing, would "cultural religionists" (for want of a better term – ie people who like the buildings, the music etc but don't believe any of the faith's various tenets to be true) also be content to be part of the constituency then used to justify policies on faith schools, on gay adoption, on clerics by right in the legislature etc?
Only if you’d been asked first, “do you have religious beliefs?”
Imagine that, say, the gov’t wanted to build a football stadium in every town and to justify that policy had on the census the question “Which sport interests you the most? Football? Tennis? Cricket?" etc and when, say, 51% said “football” (because they had even less interest in the other sports, or their Dad was a Spurs fan, or football was the sport most played at their school etc) they used that 51% to justify building the stadia.
Now imagine instead that the Census asked. “Do you have any interest in sport? If “No”, ignore the next question”, and this time the next question (about which sports respondents are interested in) had only 25% tick “Football?”
That’s the point here. Questions biased towards false positives (no matter what the subject) will be used to justify policies that wouldn’t see the light of day without those false positives.
Vlad it seems favours that provided the false positives justify policies geared toward his religious beliefs, though my guess is that he’d be less keen on policies made on the same basis in any other area of public life.
I am not supporting bad data over better data.
You are. You have been told numerous times your suggested criteria, Belief. Does not yield the data the ONS require to be relevant to policy makers
Who is more accurate the man who returns 11 eggs after told to collect 12. Or a man who returns with 12 oranges after having been asked to collect a dozen eggs.
I can't make it simpler for you than that.
-
So you say, but I had no trouble reading the question and selecting "no religion" from the options displayed to me.
You might have done, and indeed so did I, but that is besides the point.
Various pieces of work have concluded that the census question artificially inflates the numbers of people who appear to be religious due to the way in which the question is asked. Typically by about 10%, so that's perhaps 5 million people who census religious but would indicate they aren't religious if the question was asked in a more balanced manner.
And the census is supposed to be a snapshot of the country now - not 10 years ago or when I was a child. So very notion that the wording of the question leads people to answer about their religion when they were a child demonstrates how poor the question is for a census.
-
I am not supporting bad data over better data.
If you support the current question over a neutral question with a simple yes/no followed by subsidiary question for those that tick yes then you are, indeed, supporting bad data over better data.
-
Vlad,
I am not supporting bad data over better data.
Yes you are. The framing of the question produces false positives that can and likely will be used to justify public policies. You approve of that. That’s “supporting bad data over better data”. QED
You are. You have been told numerous times your suggested criteria, Belief. Does not yield the data the ONS require to be relevant to policy makers
And you’ve been told just as many times why this is wrong. If you want to introduce belief-based policies and rely on census answers to justify them, then should know what people’s beliefs are. The current census question won’t tell you that because it will also capture false positives from people who don’t have those beliefs at all.
Who is more accurate the man who returns 11 eggs after told to collect 12. Or a man who returns with 12 oranges after having been asked to collect a dozen eggs.
Oh dear. You never have understood how analogies work have you. I'll correct it for you: if the question was “Which type of eggs would you choose: Fried? Scrambled? Poached?" etc and “fried” scored, say, 51% a policy-maker might then seek to make fried eggs for breakfast compulsory for everyone.
If though you asked first, “Do you like eggs (Y/N)? If “no”, ignore the next question about which types of eggs you'd choose” chances are “Fried” would only score, say, 21% of the overall respondents’ replies (because the egg dislikers wouldn't be answering that question). And when that happens, the justification for making fried eggs for breakfast compulsory as a matter of public policy evaporates.
Do you get it now?
I can't make it simpler for you than that.
Or wrong. I can only explain it to you so many times. If you keep refusing to engage with the explanation though, then you’ll keep making the same mistake. It’s your choice.
-
Vlad,
I'll correct it for you: if the question was “Which type of eggs would you choose: Fried? Scrambled? Poached?" etc and “fried” scored, say, 51% a policy-maker might then seek to make fried eggs for breakfast compulsory for everyone.
If though you asked first, “Do you like eggs (Y/N)? If “no”, ignore the next question about which types of eggs you'd choose” chances are “Fried” would only score, say, 21% of the overall respondents’ replies (because the egg dislikers wouldn't be answering that question). And when that happens, the justification for making fried eggs for breakfast compulsory as a matter of public policy evaporates.
Do you get it now?
.
I get that you are either trying to avoid that your desire to collect data about belief/faith to the exclusion of Practice and culture of religion is not concerned a justifiable pursuit by the ONS.
I get that what was proposed by Humanist UK was felt to be inadequate and certainly of less utility to the question which has appeared.(Although I understand you deny this in favour of a conspiracy theory)
How many more times does the inadequacy of your questioning need to be spelled out to you?
You might get lucky and have your question 1 but it is unlikely to be other than do you have a life stance, since life stances such as humanism are assuming many of the trappings of religion such as, as in humanism, society reflecting their views more.
Life stance is already on census questions in the scandinavian zone I understand.
-
Vlad,
I get that you are either trying to avoid that your desire to collect data about belief/faith to the exclusion of Practice and culture of religion is not concerned a justifiable pursuit by the ONS.
Wrong again. It is a “justifiable pursuit by the ONS” inasmuch as the ONS is told to lump together cultural religionists with believing religionists. They’re just doing their job. What’s wrong though is that policy makers will then take both types of (undifferentiated) response to justify belief-only related policies.
I get that what was proposed by Humanist UK was felt to be inadequate and certainly of less utility to the question which has appeared.(Although I understand you deny this in favour of a conspiracy theory)
The only conspiracy theory here is yours, not mine remember? I’ve already explained to you why more accurate data is better than less accurate data, and why it doesn’t matter a jot who it is that argues for that.
How many more times does the inadequacy of your questioning need to be spelled out to you?
Once would be helpful. Why don’t you try to demonstrate this supposed inadequacy?
You might get lucky and have your question 1 but it is unlikely to be other than do you have a life stance, since life stances such as humanism are assuming many of the trappings of religion such as, as in humanism, society reflecting their views more.
And for those of us working in English?
Slowly now – once again: if you want to justify belief-based policies in the public domain by relying on census results, then the census should identify what people believe.
Try writing that down over and over again until it sinks in.
Oh, that applies the other way round too by the way. Let’s say that someone was interested in developing a public policy to do with visiting church buildings. The question currently on the census would give false positives for that too – it’d capture the cultural religionists (who want to visit the buildings) but it would also capture the believing religionists who, for all the policy-maker would know, may never want to set foot in a church.
Life stance is already on census questions in the scandinavian zone I understand.
“Life stance” (whatever that means) has eff all to do with it. You cannot justify belief-based policies with census data that’s corrupted by also capturing the non-believers who tick the same box.
Clear enough now?
-
Vlad,
Wrong again. It is a “justifiable pursuit by the ONS” inasmuch as the ONS is told to lump together cultural religionists with believing religionists. They’re just doing their job. What’s wrong though is that policy makers will then take both types of (undifferentiated) response to justify belief-only related policies.
The only conspiracy theory here is yours, not mine remember? I’ve already explained to you why more accurate data is better than less accurate data, and why it doesn’t matter a jot who it is that argues for that.
Once would be helpful. Why don’t you try to demonstrate this supposed inadequacy?
And for those of us working in English?
Slowly now – once again: if you want to justify belief-based policies in the public domain by relying on census results, then the census should identify what people believe.
This completely ignores that it is Humanist UK who want belief only questions on the census.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and you suggested one yourself!!!!!!!!!!!! and here you are complaining about belief based policies.
The model used by the ONS is that religion impacts society most through culture and practice and then belief brings up the rear.
Belief based policies indeed.
Mercifully the ONS decided not to let Humanist UK's beliefs based request dictate the religion question on the census.
Getting a Life stance question on the census is I acknowledge as much Fantasy Census as what you are indulging in.
-
Vlad,
This completely ignores that it is Humanist UK who want belief only questions on the census.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and you suggested one yourself!!!!!!!!!!!! and here you are complaining about belief based policies.
This completely ignores that who it is that argues that more accurate data is to be preferred over less accurate data for justifying public policy purposes has absolutely fuck all to do with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, and stop misrepresenting me too. I’m not “complaining about belief based policies” here at all. What I’m complaining about is justifying them with false or misleading data.
Why aren’t you?
The model used by the ONS is that religion impacts society most through culture and practice and then belief brings up the rear.
No it isn’t. The “model” used by the ONS is a crude approximation of religiosity whose crudeness can then be exploited to justify public policy measures even though more accurate answers wouldn't actually justify those policies at all.
Belief based policies indeed.
Yes: faith schools, adoption laws, tax exemptions and charitable status, clerics by right in the HoL – you name it.
Mercifully the ONS decided not to let Humanist UK's beliefs based request dictate the religion question on the census.
It’s only “merciful” if you think public policies should be justified by corrupted data. Clearly you do think that, presumably because in this case those policies happen to suit your agenda.
Getting Life stance is I acknowledge as much Fantasy Census as what you are indulging in.
Incoherent. Yet again: you cannot justify belief-based policies with census data that’s corrupted by also capturing the non-believers who tick the same box.
Why is this still confusing you?
-
Jeremy,
No doubt, but lots of people it seems do.
That's a bit of an assumption. Maybe people regard the questions as different so they give different answers.
Fifty-nine per cent said they selected it because they were christened. Forty four per cent said it was because one of their parents was Christian. Clearly many thought of it as a cultural category.
So a lot of people regard Christianity as their religion because they have some sort of link to it. If the intent of the question is to find out people's cultural religion, it works OK. If people regard themselves as Christian, even if they don't believe in God or even that Jesus was a real person (that 27 percent figure seems suspiciously low to me), that's fine as far as I'm concerned.
The point here is first that the way a question is framed heavily influences the answer it produces
The problem that I have is that here is a question in which the answer "no religion" features prominently and yet some people whine when the result isn't what they think it should be. I do not think the question is misleading and if non believers are selecting "Christian", it's because that is how they wish to be perceived.
-
Jeremy
That's a bit of an assumption. Maybe people regard the questions as different so they give different answers.
No it isn’t. Framing bias is a well-known and well-understood phenomenon. I gave Vlad an example (that he just ignored of course) of highly qualified and intelligent oncologists being asked the same question framed differently (90% survival rate vs 10% mortality rate) and producing significantly different answers because of the language used.
So a lot of people regard Christianity as their religion because they have some sort of link to it. If the intent of the question is to find out people's cultural religion, it works OK. If people regard themselves as Christian, even if they don't believe in God or even that Jesus was a real person (that 27 percent figure seems suspiciously low to me), that's fine as far as I'm concerned.
Even when policy makers then co-opt those same cultural Christians to justify public policies that are actually belief-dependent - like adoption by gay couples for example?
Really?
The problem that I have is that here is a question in which the answer "no religion" features prominently and yet some people whine when the result isn't what they think it should be. I do not think the question is misleading and if non believers are selecting "Christian", it's because that is how they wish to be perceived.
Then you probably shouldn’t have. When the question is trialled both ways (with a “none” option after CofE etc, and with a prior question about whether they have religious belief at all) you get different answers. The former consistently scores higher for religiosity than the latter, and often significantly so.