Secularism and tolerance go hand in hand

[ProfessorDavey]

Secularism is the state isn't it?

No - it is an approach to the constitutional position of the state.

And right now the state's definition of good works is radically different from the church's. How therefore can a secular replacement for church charity possibly replace it?

What are you on about - you clearly have no understanding of secularism if you think it would require church charity to be somehow replaced. Under a secular system church goers can remain as charitable (or uncharitable) as they are right now. The only difference might be that a few privileges that are provided to religious charities (e.g. a higher level of turnover before they have to register with the Charities Commission) might be removed to provide a level playing field for all charities regardless of whether they claim a religious ethos or not.

[ProfessorDavey]

I would argue that having Bishops in the house was and is an attempt to represent the non temporal, non economic, non gentries ...

Err have you checked out the background of the current leader of the Lords Spiritual in the HofL, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Perhaps you are unaware of his achingly establishment backgrounds, exemplified by the school he attended. In case you aren't aware during his later time at school he might have encountered some younger boys by the name of Boris Johnson and David Cameron.

[BashfulAnthony]

Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?

And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.

You would have to provide some evidence of that.

I'll see if I can find the source that I seem to remember reading this in - ironically, provided some time ago by ippy, iirc.

-

Wikipedia states that

As of 2014, about 65% of Swedish citizens are members of the Church of Sweden, compared to over 95% in 1970, and 83% in 2000. ...

According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2012, the religions in Sweden are the following:
Protestants 41%
Orthodox 1%
Catholics 2%
Other Christian 9%

a total of 53%.  This is not what I remember reading, as that suggested about 9% attended church regularly.  Wikipedia suggests that only 4% of the membership of the Church of Sweden attend church regularly, but the other denominations are probably a higher proportion, in the same way as here in the UK.  Estimates for regular church attendance fluctuate from 3-7% here in the UK (probably as the phrase 'regularly' has no definitive figure attached to it - most church statisticians take it as at least once a month, other statisticians seem to accept less than that).  If you add even a third of the other 12%, one is up to 8%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden#Church_of_Sweden

The most recent and highly respected WIN/Gallup International survey which looks at religiosity across a very large number of countries in the world found Sweden to be one of the very least religious countries, with over 80% saying they are 'not religious' or they are 'convinced atheists'. Only China and Japan of the 65 countries surveyed had a smaller proportion of people who say they are religious.

I gather that regular church attendance in Sweden is estimated (always rather difficult to get definitive figures) to be about 2-3% of the population, so probably a little lower than in the UK.

And we all know how reliable those things are!

[ProfessorDavey]

Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?

And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.

You would have to provide some evidence of that.

I'll see if I can find the source that I seem to remember reading this in - ironically, provided some time ago by ippy, iirc.

-

Wikipedia states that

As of 2014, about 65% of Swedish citizens are members of the Church of Sweden, compared to over 95% in 1970, and 83% in 2000. ...

According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2012, the religions in Sweden are the following:
Protestants 41%
Orthodox 1%
Catholics 2%
Other Christian 9%

a total of 53%.  This is not what I remember reading, as that suggested about 9% attended church regularly.  Wikipedia suggests that only 4% of the membership of the Church of Sweden attend church regularly, but the other denominations are probably a higher proportion, in the same way as here in the UK.  Estimates for regular church attendance fluctuate from 3-7% here in the UK (probably as the phrase 'regularly' has no definitive figure attached to it - most church statisticians take it as at least once a month, other statisticians seem to accept less than that).  If you add even a third of the other 12%, one is up to 8%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden#Church_of_Sweden

The most recent and highly respected WIN/Gallup International survey which looks at religiosity across a very large number of countries in the world found Sweden to be one of the very least religious countries, with over 80% saying they are 'not religious' or they are 'convinced atheists'. Only China and Japan of the 65 countries surveyed had a smaller proportion of people who say they are religious.

I gather that regular church attendance in Sweden is estimated (always rather difficult to get definitive figures) to be about 2-3% of the population, so probably a little lower than in the UK.

And we all know how reliable those things are!

Yes we do - very reliable - this is a properly conducted opinion survey conducted by one of the most respected organisations using established methodologies to ensure a demographically representative sample. Typically the margin or error is +/-3%.

Interesting how some people cast aspirations on the reliability of bone fide surveys only when they don't like the results.

[Hope]

Interesting how some people cast aspirations on the reliability of bone fide surveys only when they don't like the results.

I believe that this 'reliability of bona fide surveys' was taken for granted prior to two recent national elections.


So, it's not that we question them "only when (we) don't like the results".

[ProfessorDavey]

Interesting how some people cast aspirations on the reliability of bone fide surveys only when they don't like the results.

I believe that this 'reliability of bona fide surveys' was taken for granted prior to two recent national elections.


So, it's not that we question them "only when (we) don't like the results".

Which two would that be Hope.

If you mean the 2015 General Election as one of them the result was within the standard margin of error for the final polls.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

There is a bona fide scientific survey on another thread which you seem to think is a load of rubbish

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

There is a bona fide scientific survey on another thread which you seem to think is a load of rubbish

Gonnagle.

Where - surely you don't mean this one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html#disqus_thread

Given that the article refers only to a lecture he is going to give and a provides a quote from an interview with the BBC then I think I can readily conclude that there is no study as yet, or certainly not a bone fide scientific academic study which would be subjected to proper peer review prior to publication.

All he has done is posited a claim - that isn't evidence, merely his opinion. And this article (along with a few others, e.g. in The Guardian came out in 2008). Yet interestingly, despite having 7 years since those articles he never seems to have actually published a proper research paper on the topic. Hmm - I wonder why.

[Hope]

Which two would that be Hope.

If you mean the 2015 General Election as one of them the result was within the standard margin of error for the final polls.

That's not what they were saying at the time, and groups like YouGov have stated that they will have to radically rethink their processes in order to get back into that acceptable statistical margin.

The other was the Israeli General Election 6 weeks earlier.

[Hope]

Given that the article refers only to a lecture he is going to give and a provides a quote from an interview with the BBC then I think I can readily conclude that there is no study as yet, or certainly not a bone fide scientific academic study which would be subjected to proper peer review prior to publication.

The article also refers to the fact that he, and his colleagues, have looked at and collated the findings of previous studies (the figure is given more pre-eminence in the Science Daily article that Rose uses in her OP on the 'Children: religion the default position' thread).

[ProfessorDavey]

Which two would that be Hope.

If you mean the 2015 General Election as one of them the result was within the standard margin of error for the final polls.

That's not what they were saying at the time, and groups like YouGov have stated that they will have to radically rethink their processes in order to get back into that acceptable statistical margin.

The other was the Israeli General Election 6 weeks earlier.

YouGov's final pre-election poll suggested Con 34, Lab 33 - actual result Con 37, Lab 31 - sounds pretty well within the +/- 3% mating of error to me.

But actually election polling is more complicated than the sorts of surveys we've been talking about here. Why, because you have to take account not just of the opinion (which party a person is likely to vote for), but also likelihood to vote. There is no equivalent filtering for 'likelihood to vote' if you are asking people whether they are a religious person, not a religious person or a convinced atheist - which was the question on the Gallup survey we've been discussing.

In Israel there is a moratorium on publishing polls in the last few days so a late swing may not be picked up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremy, if you bother rading my posts, I'm not against a secular society, but I am against a society that claims to be secular, but is, in reality, atheist.

Why?

Because an atheist society places atheism in a predominant position, thus denying the point of secularism.

I'm very happy with a society that places atheism in a predominant position

It's ''The Big Non'' and would amount to a loss of something. That's where antitheism would creep in........It happened to you after all.

[Shaker]

What on earth are you babbling about?

[ippy]

I think it would be a fair comment to say that Hope's had a comprehensive drubbing on this thread, I wish I could take the credit for that but without a doubt it has to be a, Well done Proff D.

ippy.   

[Shaker]

I think it would be a fair comment to say that Hope's had a comprehensive drubbing on this thread, I wish I could take the credit for that but without a doubt it has to be a, Well done Proff D.

ippy.

It's usual. He's been the ginger stepchild on the 'extended Sunday opening hours' thread as well, also at the hands of the good Prof.

[jeremyp]

Interesting how some people cast aspirations on the reliability of bone fide surveys only when they don't like the results.

I believe that this 'reliability of bona fide surveys' was taken for granted prior to two recent national elections.


So, it's not that we question them "only when (we) don't like the results".

Which two would that be Hope.

If you mean the 2015 General Election as one of them the result was within the standard margin of error for the final polls.

The exit poll was pretty much spot on.