Sociology and Religion: Belief in the Supernatural

A Theos survey found:
27% believe in reincarnation
39% believe in ghosts
55% believe in Heaven
53% believe in life after death
70% believe in human soul.

Comparing with 1950s:
22% believe in astrology or horoscopes & 15% believe in fortune telling
1950s: 10% believe in ghosts (2% seen one), 7% in fortune telling, 6% in satrology.

Comparing with 1998:
18% believe in fortune telling
38% believe in astrology
40% believe in ghosts, 15% seen one.

"The results indicate that people have a very diverse and unorthodox set of beliefs. Our research may point to a slight increase in scepticism about aspects of the supernatural over the last 10 years." (Wooley)

Source: BBC

So what does this tell us?

True that results indicate a diverse and 'unorthodox set of beliefs', and I would like to refer back to my last blog in a mention of a 'Civil Religion' - and that for some, even a sports game can be followed somewhat religiously. So perhaps given this, the results are not all that suprising.

But, what is really meant by a belief in... heaven, or life after death, or reincarnation, or astrology, or fortune telling? We can't by any stretch of the imagination draw anything conclusive other than the very obvious: There is a degree of an increase in such diversity of beliefs. Yet also, we cannot ignore there are degrees within these beliefs. For example, just what IS heaven? Also, what kind of life after death are we talking about? Something along the lines of John Hick's philosophy of a physical existence in the next world, or Christian resurrection, or that we move on to a higher mental plane after our physical death?

I would also like to make the suggestion that some beliefs could well be interlinked: consider the soul, life after death, and ghosts. One person may believe that when we die, our soul continues after death and is reconstituted in the form of a ghost. Another may feel the soul dies with the body, or that it carries on after death and there are no such thing as ghosts.

So there are many different (and interesting things) we can draw from the sociological survey, and importantly that while people may seem to be less religious (consider church attendences), that does not mean that people are any less spiritual and searching for this fulfillment in other ways.

Religion, Faith, Spirituality, Belief... all this smacks of a DIY ethic on the one hand, and a more critical, open-minded and considerate ethic on the other.

Happy Good Friday?

Found this on my Feedly newsreader via Firefox which I found rather strange:



Happy Good Friday. It seems a bit strange, but I asked my dad, Fr Peter and he says its not a day of celebration as such but rather one of remembering. Quite right, too.

This Easter has seen a religious holiday getting all political over the football being shown on Easter Sunday - only ever happened 8 times, ever, in the past. For a country that is historically Christian, I do think that there is a point.

We should remember the Passion of Christ and Easter for specifically those reasons but also I think, for an atheist, who might not have any holidays, a compromise should be found: a religion of one is no less relevant than a religion shared by 6, 6 million or 6 billion.

Robert Bellah puts forward his argument of a 'Civil Religion in America' ; which we if accept this premise, can translate for many football fanatics that football is religion too, and the stadium is the church and the game is the service.

Should there be any clash of religions, (as ridiculous as football being a religion may seem to Catholics, Christians and vice-versa), what I propose is the art of compromise:

Whereby there is a clash, there are those that are religious, and watch their football too, and so both should be allowed in the spirit of things - but the football should be screened at a time that does not disrupt the Easter festivities. Where Setanta are showing the game at 1PM (kickoff at 2PM) - this does not allow most Evertonians travelling from Merseyside to get to the game on time where Christian services are likely to take place around 10:30AM. So I would argue the game should be kicked off at 4PM instead, to allow for Easter to go somewhat less disrupted, ample time to arrive for the game.

All this bleating might seem a bit crazy for some - it's impossible to please everybody. Still, this reminds me of an email my dad sent me on religious days for the atheist:

In Florida , an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians, Jews and observances of their holy days.

The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.

The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring,"Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."

The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned."

You got to love a Judge that knows his scripture!

Questions of Truth

I found this blog a bit interesting: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=708


It is about a review of a book, Questions of Truth.

"Questions of Truth vividly illustrates how, if you are sufficiently committed to a belief, it is always possible to interpret other facts to fit in with it. It all depends on which of your beliefs you take to be non-negotiable. “The materialist takes as basic fact the existence of matter,” they say, somewhat caricaturing the atheist position. “The theist takes as basic fact the existence of a divine creator,” they add, accurately describing their own. From this starting point, it is clear there is nothing which could persuade the theist otherwise."

The only thing that I have to ask if: If you are willing to see some parts of your faith as negotiable, then should or can you really subscribe to that faith at all?...

Christmas Speeches

Every Year, Channel 4 broadcast an "alternative" christmas speech.

This year, it was by the Iranian President Ahmadinejad.

The Christmas speech, as normal was given by our lovely Queen.

Check the links above to watch the clips (if you're interested).

Basically, the UK Government has expressed their outrage at C4's broadcast because Ahmadinejad is "racist", "anti-semetic", "homophobic". That all may be, but that isn't the point.

The annual Queen speech, by contrast, is a patronizing debacle that only reminds us Britons that we are subjects, not citizens. It's hardly perfect either.

In the first case, the Iranian Christmas message is insulting because of its racial and extreme beleifs that give the impression if we don't consort to these beleifs we are not good people. That is, of course the idea with following religious scripture ideals, isn't it?

The second, the Queen's speech, is like I said, a reminder of the class-prejudice, pro-Aristocratic that just seems as downright patronizing.

We are all people created equal, before God, before the law. So let's ditch these religious and class - namely biased - speeches for Christmas. Let's have something secular, and meaningful. Something that is actually relevant and we can all relate to and subscribe in the 21st Century.

Something that is actually worth watching, anyway. Why anyone would want to be patronized by the Queen or lectured to by the President of a rogue, religious state I don't know. Where, in Iran, violation of its religious teachings are not crimes against our family but crimes against the state is a direct example why it is not worth listening to. The Monarchy, and all it symbolizes, is reason enough not to listen to it.

We are all equal. Maybe next year I could mock my own Christmas speech. Now that would be something.