Heathens need not apply! Kentucky's 'Ark Encounter' is hiring

fair points. i think i just ~hope~ that this percentage of belief is just a shallow unexamined view…but you are right there certainly are quite a lot of devout believers as well, i don’t deny that i just think they are the minority.

A lot of Christians in the USA are “armchair” social Christians who go to church to be told what to think and belong to a social club but never really read the bible cover to cover themselves or fully understand the religion they claim to ascribe to. I’d like to think that an equal percentage of “believers” have the same level of shallow belief, but maybe not…

Maybe it is a literacy issue…angels vs angles…I believe in angles, but maybe i’m just being obtuse.:slight_smile:

5 Likes

It’s a problem that is becoming increasingly acute. I just hope we are looking at it from the right angle and not going off on a tangent - or more specifically, an ark tangent…

6 Likes

Also what exactly defines an “angel.” If you define Santa Claus as a sort of seasonal shared spirit of generosity and fellow-feeling, then yeah, I believe in Santa. I have observed and participated in that Santa. But if you define him as a jolly red-suited fellow who lives at the North Pole and breaks every law of physics to deliver toys to an arbitrary subset of the world’s children… well, I can’t remember ever being uncritical enough not to be at least a little skeptical.

Maybe a lot of the people answering “yes” to the angel poll don’t mean literal winged humanoid beings wearing white robes and strumming harps, or even the depictions more faithful to the descriptions in Ezekiel and Revelation…

…but angels as metaphor or personification of good fortune or something.

One can hope.

(Actually I would be down with the hallucinatory crazypants angels far more readily than the anodyne harpist type.)

ETA okay a bald eagle wouldn’t have been in the Old Testament.

7 Likes

What about archimedes screws?

Shhhh! The currency exchange fees we collect at Honolulu Airport keep our economy afloat!

3 Likes

I love this so much. These are angels I could actually get behind.

We should probably pass that question up to the ark angel.

8 Likes

There were two on the Ark. Duh. :smirk:

Woah, woah, woah. There was a pair of a “kind” of birds on the ark. Not sure if that would include bald eagles specifically, or if they were the product of really, really fast 4,000 year “micro” evolution from the birds on the ark. :neutral_face:

4 Likes

Heretic.

edited to add:

FTFY.
Heretic.

3 Likes

Evil ducks dude, evil ducks. That’s why they are all assholes. “A flood? Sure, I floated down there, now I float up here”.

Shamelessly and imperfectly lifted from Eddie Izzard

3 Likes

Hay, where you get my high school photos at!?

The other 50% would give you the stinkeye because they know the angels really only talk with them.

5 Likes

12 Likes

Right and that’s a factor in a lot of these other polls too. Especially the age break downs. There are a number of other, longer running, larger polls on religious and political tops in the US than the . Larger sample sizes, active testing of different wording, and break downs by demographics. I think Pew is one of the big ones. When you take the larger sample sizes and break them down by age you see some pretty startling differences. Those under about 45, and especially those under 35 have shockingly lower levels of religiosity and much less acceptance of things like creationism, angels, etc. There’s still plenty of supernatural thought in other subjects, but there’s a really extreme correlation between age and geography and acceptance of baldly Evangelical Christian fringe concepts. Hell even when you break these things down by sect you see major changes, Remember The Catholic Church explicitly rejects Young Earth Creationism, accepts evolution etc (and most American Catholics are significantly more liberal than the Church itself).

Basically my take away for years has been these thing suffer from the same sort of response bias that most polling does, but frequently in more extreme fashion. Old people, people in rural and southern areas, whites, and those who are most enthusiastic about religion are far, far, far more likely to respond to the poll. So any poll that isn’t maximizing its sample size, and making their estimates about national belief levels based on careful analysis of demographics is basically over emphasizing what old white evangelicals believe. Which tracks rather nicely with the various estimates of what percentages identify as what denomination.

While something like 70%-80% of Americans still identify as “Christian”, Christianity isn’t a monolith, and many of the denominations hold beliefs that are mutually exclusive. (In particular Evangelicals often describe both Mormons and Catholics as non-Christian). So depending on which numbers you believe the largest single block is either the Nones (a catchall for Atheists, Agnostics, people who don’t give a shit and those people who are “spiritual but not religious”) or the Catholics at around 25ish percent. Between the two you’ve got nearly half the country. Most of you’re nones are unlikely to accept shit like YEC, though angels and denial of evolution aren’t out the window. Catholics believe plenty that’s fringe religious, including angels. And there’s a small but vocal hardcore coalition that’s accepting of things like creationism. But biblical liberalism (including a young earth) is not accepted by the Church itself, and is in large part antithetical to Catholic Theological thought. And most American Catholics are significantly more liberal, especially on social issues than the Church itself (which is part of why they’re seeing drastic drops in attendance). Following these two categories you usually have your mainline protestant faiths. Lutherans, Episcopalians/Anglicans, Presbyterians (though there’s an internal divide there, with a small evangelical wing that’s perpetually threatening to leave), etc. These are your traditional block of “liberal” Christian faiths, they often explicitly reject creationism, the young earth, biblical liberalism, and have the exact opposite positions of social issues and politics than the Christian Right. And are often where your traditionally Black denominations sit. Last I checked they come in somewhere less than 20%. Below that are where you find your various Evangelical faiths and Mormonism, these groups are about as ideologically and theologically aligned as the Mainline Protestants, but they’re a smaller group group by far. And its where most of your creationists and biblical literalists live. After than you’ve got your assorted non-christian religions. Jews being the largest.

The more granular you look at this stuff, and the less you block Christians together as a unified whole (again they aren’t, and neither are any of the other broad categories including Nones) the less plausible a lot of these headline numbers look. It looks as is most Americans come from ideologies where these concepts are fringe, minority ideas, or completely antithetical to the ideology, theology, or politics of the groups Americans actually sit in. So I tend to assume they’re over estimated to various degrees. Something I think is well backed by the number of recent studies and polls that have found Religiosity in generally falling quickly as older generations (especially the boomers) start to die out and the generations born since the mid 70’s, as well as non-whites, become a larger proportion of the population. Though I would note that there doesn’t seem to be too much change in supernatural thought or science literacy in general, even across demographics. The BS is just getting less explicitly Christian.

2 Likes

Biblical literalism isn’t necessarily the position of the Catholic Church given its penchant for extra-biblical doctrine with regards to the New Testament, but neither is Old Testament literalism antithetical to Catholic doctrine.

While I’m not gonna claim there aren’t a decent amount of biblical literalists (New or old testament or even those that follow the Jewish approaches) in the Catholic church both as members and in the Church establishment, it really is antithetical to the base function of Catholic theological methods. Extra biblical doctrine isn’t just a quirky, it’s a direct outgrowth of these methods. It’s all based in pretty old school academic, legal, and rhetorical forms derived from the Romans, the same basis that lead to the scientific method. And if you trace it back far enough it basically starts to look like a romanised versions of the rabbinical tradition.

Functionally arguements must be drawn from sources. More sources are better. The bible is only one source, and it may or may not be the most authoritative situationally. Other religious arguments, academic texts from other fields (mostly history but sometimes science), non-canonical religious text, all that saint crap, Catholic myth, demonology and what have, even texts and arguments from other faiths. Can be and are cited. Even the pope has to cite his sources, and if he cites poor ones or not enough or skips it, his infallibility might not count for much.

And that whole thing is completely at odds with literalism, and the bible as the single source. In fact that’s a large part of how fundamentalism first arose. At base it’s a rejection of that approach and a stripping away of non-biblical sources.

Now that’s not to say most Catholics give a shit about this. Or that it functions in anyway that makes sense, is authoratative, or looks anything like legit academic or legal arguement. And curiously you can (and people frequently do) use this approach to argue for biblical liberalism. And it doesn’t purge every instance of literal interpretations from doctrine/dogma.

Thas a party boat, Ptolemy never had to leave the harbour to go around the world in that.

5 Likes

Most US Catholics don’t even know that the immaculate conception is not the conception of Jesus. The Church may have centuries of theological depth but little of that trickles down to the faithful. Not surprising from a church that tried to keep the contents of the bible secret from the congregation.

4 Likes

But seriously, I didn’t know that either. Wikipedia gives the details. Thanks for the info. We live and learn.

6 Likes