31% of American adults believe the Bible is Literal Word of God - Belief strongest among those without college degrees

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Believe in the literal word of the Bible is strongest among those whose schooling stopped with high school and declines steadily with educational level, with only 20% of college graduates holding that view and 11% of those with an advanced degree.

One would want something to believe in when you're living in a country with no socialised health-care, social security, or any support for the poor, and the rest of the country is saying, "Not my problem! It's everyone for themselves." Either that or you join the military and be part of the "poverty draft."

That's cheap. Your blatant hatred of this country and its people infects every topic.

[chri'stina 190]

I'm in the 20%, and many of the people I know are as well, including some very respected college professors.

Same here. (and Sujeet would be in the 11% with advanced degrees, he already had a degree when he started believing the bible was true and literal)

I had a class with a very respected Archaeology professor at USF, who never blatantly talked about his faith but he gave hints to it. He's probably one of the smartest people I've ever met.

I had a lot of anti-religion, or actually anti-Christianity professors, in several classes. But yeah, it didn't change my beliefs.

[Jamie76 0]

I don't take the bible literally, but I do believe in God. I don't believe in creationism, but having a science/biology background, I've come to accept intelligent design. One of my former microbiology profs was Christian but he never talked about it during lecture. He was asked about it though by a student and he gave his reasons for believing in intelligent design. Long story short...The odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins and then these proteins interacting with others to form something useful were astronomical.

[Jamie76 0]

...with only 20% of college graduates holding that view and 11% of those with an advanced degree.

Liberal professors poisoned the well.

I've heard that before - and its really not surprising. Though there have been allegations that the education system somehow 'discourages' people from pursuing a religious faith. I'm not sure I agree with that. More likely that a lot of people are simply naive. After all, if your faith is really that strong - there's no reason that you can't be religious and educated. I mean... many people are...

Of course - we've seen a few of the people who dogmatically in the "literal truth of the bible" - remember that guy from a few months back who tried to "prove it" with all sorts of wild "new-age" theories - about mathematical patterns in the text. I read up on one of the authors he quoted - and apparently the guy made some claim about extra-terrestrials burying secret texts in the Mojave desert. Unsurprisingly, the expedition he mounted didn't find anything...

It's hard to get a Biblical literalist to embrace any wisdom or moral truths from Buddha, or Mohammed, Vishnu, or any other resource outside of their limited understanding of faith. They consider it secularist...outside of faith. It either comes from the Bible or doesn't come from God.

There certainly is a fundamentalist element like that in most religions. Some of those people are pretty out there - especially when we start talking about finding ways to "prove it". Always seemed contradictory to me - as faith doesn't require proof, nor should faith be threatened by things that question the "literal truth" of the text. That whole debate over the science of creationism is completely bogus IMO. Science used for political purposes is just propaganda.

But at least you can understand how they take something like evolution and feel their faith is being threatened by it. Perhaps in some way they rationalize just what you said, that because faith is not something proven, they hang on vigorously in their faith that the very words in the Bible are God's and no human can take that away from them.

I guess the question there is whether religion is being used as some sort of emotional crutch to fill in for something else that's missing. I think its fair to say that this usually in the absence of education - you need only look at the indoctrination of suicide bombers to see that.

I disagree. Not usually. There would be a very strong chance that these suicide bombers have had their family, or someone close to them wiped out by Amerikan Aggression.

The Amerikans (pathetic, unlawful, disrespectful lot that they are) have entered Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of people (Baghdad, Falluja, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay - name your atrocity). Regardless of education, one can see a reason for any of the remaining relatives wanting to be a suicide bomber.

Why may I ask are you even in the United States?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't take the bible literally, but I do believe in God. I don't believe in creationism, but having a science/biology background, I've come to accept intelligent design. One of my former microbiology profs was Christian but he never talked about it during lecture. He was asked about it though by a student and he gave his reasons for believing in intelligent design. Long story short...The odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins and then these proteins interacting with others to form something useful were astronomical.

Well... in an infinite universe everything is possible. So the odds would be 1 in 1 no?

[Dr_LHA 3]

One of my professors had a stripper go all the way down to a g-string and pasties in front of the entire class, which was about 90% female.

MMmmm. Pasties.

[Dr_LHA 3]

I don't take the bible literally, but I do believe in God. I don't believe in creationism, but having a science/biology background, I've come to accept intelligent design. One of my former microbiology profs was Christian but he never talked about it during lecture. He was asked about it though by a student and he gave his reasons for believing in intelligent design. Long story short...The odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins and then these proteins interacting with others to form something useful were astronomical.

Its a good thing that the Earth formed on "astronomical" time scales then. Surely the argument against the idea that amino acids not being able to form is simply: "Look, here they are, amino acids, they did form. Time to rethink your theory", because "god did it" is not science.

[danae 0]

As far as I was always taught , the bible stories were created in order for children to better understand the whole concept of what the religion is about. They were never to be taken as literal by adults! It amazes me that people actually do take them literally

[Scott & Lai 12]

There certainly is a fundamentalist element like that in most religions. Some of those people are pretty out there - especially when we start talking about finding ways to "prove it". Always seemed contradictory to me - as faith doesn't require proof, nor should faith be threatened by things that question the "literal truth" of the text.

That is a concept of faith that I've never understood. It certainly isn't the Biblical view. Faith is not a thing that has value in and of itself, but only in relation to a proper object. Faith in something false is worthless, no matter the strength of the faith. Christianity is not merely a set of ideas or philosophical concepts, but is at its core about a set of events which happened in real world history; Christian faith is rooted in those events. If they didn't actually happen, then that faith is foolish.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't take the bible literally, but I do believe in God. I don't believe in creationism, but having a science/biology background, I've come to accept intelligent design. One of my former microbiology profs was Christian but he never talked about it during lecture. He was asked about it though by a student and he gave his reasons for believing in intelligent design. Long story short...The odds of amino acids coming together to form proteins and then these proteins interacting with others to form something useful were astronomical.

Its a good thing that the Earth formed on "astronomical" time scales then. Surely the argument against the idea that amino acids not being able to form is simply: "Look, here they are, amino acids, they did form. Time to rethink your theory", because "god did it" is not science.

Well there are different questions involved. Religion is why, Science is how. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There certainly is a fundamentalist element like that in most religions. Some of those people are pretty out there - especially when we start talking about finding ways to "prove it". Always seemed contradictory to me - as faith doesn't require proof, nor should faith be threatened by things that question the "literal truth" of the text.

That is a concept of faith that I've never understood. It certainly isn't the Biblical view. Faith is not a thing that has value in and of itself, but only in relation to a proper object. Faith in something false is worthless, no matter the strength of the faith. Christianity is not merely a set of ideas or philosophical concepts, but is at its core about a set of events which happened in real world history; Christian faith is rooted in those events. If they didn't actually happen, then that faith is foolish.

But that doesn't answer the question why many "people of faith" seem hell-bent on subverting science in order to prove something that simply can't be proven. Or why people feel the need to validate their faith in say, Creation, with questionable interpretations of scientific research.

Edited May 26, 2007 by erekose

[Scott & Lai 12]

There certainly is a fundamentalist element like that in most religions. Some of those people are pretty out there - especially when we start talking about finding ways to "prove it". Always seemed contradictory to me - as faith doesn't require proof, nor should faith be threatened by things that question the "literal truth" of the text.

That is a concept of faith that I've never understood. It certainly isn't the Biblical view. Faith is not a thing that has value in and of itself, but only in relation to a proper object. Faith in something false is worthless, no matter the strength of the faith. Christianity is not merely a set of ideas or philosophical concepts, but is at its core about a set of events which happened in real world history; Christian faith is rooted in those events. If they didn't actually happen, then that faith is foolish.

But that doesn't answer the question why many "people of faith" seem hell-bent on subverting science in order to prove something that simply can't be proven. Or why people feel the need to validate their faith in say, Creation, with questionable interpretations of scientific research.

I think it does answer that question...you said faith doesn't require proof, and so shouldn't be threatened by things that question the literal truth of the text. I'm saying that since Christian faith is centered in events described in the Biblical texts, then if the texts are not true in the ordinary sense (the way events in the newspaper are true, not "Universal 'Truths'"), then that faith is misplaced.

As far as science goes, I don't accept the view that the Earth was made in 144 hours 6,000 years ago, nor do I believe that is how the text of Genesis 1 & 2 is intended to be understood. I do, however, believe in an actual Adam and Eve, who were created separate from animals, from whom every human being since is descended. I don't think there is any way around that, as far as the Biblical text is concerned.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

One of my professors had a stripper go all the way down to a g-string and pasties in front of the entire class, which was about 90% female.

MMmmm. Pasties.

Those are not pasties!! they are called EMPANADAS and it's an argentinian dish!! you take that back!!!

Oh...I believe in God but would never, not in a million years, take the bible literally

Caro,

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There certainly is a fundamentalist element like that in most religions. Some of those people are pretty out there - especially when we start talking about finding ways to "prove it". Always seemed contradictory to me - as faith doesn't require proof, nor should faith be threatened by things that question the "literal truth" of the text.

That is a concept of faith that I've never understood. It certainly isn't the Biblical view. Faith is not a thing that has value in and of itself, but only in relation to a proper object. Faith in something false is worthless, no matter the strength of the faith. Christianity is not merely a set of ideas or philosophical concepts, but is at its core about a set of events which happened in real world history; Christian faith is rooted in those events. If they didn't actually happen, then that faith is foolish.

Scott, can Jesus' message, the Gospel, not stand on its on merit in spite of history? I personally don't see that our Judeo-Christian faith must be rooted in a factual history to be legitimate. It's the message.

[Alex+R 0]

I think there is something whacked about needing to believe the facts of Christianity (or any religion) are true in order to have faith. That's not even faith then, it's just acceptance of what you "know" to be true, the same way I know about Christopher Columbus or Henry VIII although I wasn't there. I wouldn't call that faith.

Faith isn't about rational explanations and documentation.