# Do Americans really believe in God, or do they just say they do? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 29, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670 "2015-12-29T19:29:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2016, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/201 "2016-01-03T20:13:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Um… what? > > When did the rule that all facts in the Bible are inerrant enter into this particular discussion? > > I am well aware that some Christian sects contend that the King James version of the Bible is inerrant, but this discussion is not limited to the views from those sects, is it? Did I miss a post in which we focused solely on that possibility? It’s not just a few Protestant sects. It’s pretty much mainstream Christian theology, e.g.: [QUOTE=The Roman Catholic Church] 107The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” [/QUOTE] [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc\_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm) The Bible says that God, not some advanced alien technology, made the donkey speak. You’re the one who is bringing stuff in from left field, or should I say, outer space. ---
**Author:** ![DrForrester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8edcca/32.png) [@DrForrester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrForrester)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2016, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/202 "2016-01-03T20:16:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Um… what? > > When did the rule that all facts in the Bible are inerrant enter into this particular discussion? > > I am well aware that some Christian sects contend that the King James version of the Bible is inerrant, but this discussion is not limited to the views from those sects, is it? Did I miss a post in which we focused solely on that possibility? Right. Paraphrasing, Robert163 said that it would be “delusional” to believe that a donkey could speak. You said that the person need not be delusional, because the person might be honestly, lucidly reporting that the donkey was speaking because of a misunderstanding of what was “really” happening. I am suggesting that your proposition, although sympathetic, should probably be discounted because a strict reading of the Bible would not allow for your interpretation. Yours is a creative argument. But, we shouldn’t plumb those depths, in my opinion. Why not? If you are allowed to suppose an error in reporting here, you can assume an error in reporting everywhere, which tends to erode all miracles, which rather drains the story. But, if you did allow the error in reporting here & not anywhere else, we end up with a mistake in the Bible that really is 100% ignorable. Fine. The person isn’t deluded. You win this point. I agree with your logic. But, this, in my opinion, isn’t very helpful, because a deluded person isn’t the most likely explanation for the passage. The most likely explanation, in my personal opinion, is that the whole passage is fictional. Made up. So, the choice I am suggesting isn’t whether for not the author of the Biblical passage was deluded. That’s not very interesting. I’m suggesting that we must accept the passage as being factual or fictional. Any compromise is weaseling and tedious. I am not trying to oppose your view; I am trying to expand the overall thought process without bringing aliens into it. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2016, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/203 "2016-01-03T20:20:17Z")
> [@DrForrester](#): > > Right. Paraphrasing, Robert163 said that it would be “delusional” to believe that a donkey could speak. You said that the person need not be delusional, because the person might be honestly, lucidly reporting that the donkey was speaking because of a misunderstanding of what was “really” happening. How is one supposed to get confused as to whether a donkey was talking or not? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2016, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/204 "2016-01-03T20:28:22Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > How is one supposed to get confused as to whether a donkey was talking or not? CGI. (The G stands for God.) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2016, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/205 "2016-01-03T20:28:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think we need to understand what we mean when we say, “Scientifically impossible.” > > What I mean is: “No hypothesis could account for the observed events without violating the natural physical laws of the universe.” > > What do you mean? > > Because my inference is that you mean something like: “Any hypothesis that could explain the observed events either violates the natural laws of the universe or is so unlikely that accepting it would require significantly more evidence than currently exists.” > > For example, next year, the aliens return to Earth, ready to welcome us into the Federation of Sentient Creatures. They also apologize for their prior encounter, in which a rogue team though it would be funny to surgically implant bio-devices in some guy’s donkey, record the results, and broadcast them on The Galaxy’s Funniest Home Videos (Primitive Cultures Edition). They show us the recording. > > Now that is obviously highly unlikely, so much so that in ordinary conversation “impossible,” is not an unreasonable judgment. But “scientifically impossible?” No – it violates no laws of the universe. I mean as the story is told. The donkey did not just talk, like Mr. Ed or maybe Francis the Mule, but spoke very specific things in a specific context - and said no more. That’s as close to impossible as I think we can get. Close enough that we are a sim is a more plausible explanation. Ed Fredkin, an early believer that the universe is a simulation, said that miracles might be bugs. By your definition scientifically impossible has no meaning, since we can always invent powerful aliens to explain away anything. Is that what you mean? ---
**Author:** ![Annadroid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@Annadroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annadroid)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2016, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/206 "2016-01-03T20:39:06Z")
I could not choose one of those answers. I do not know about deities, the probabilities any exist are extremely slim, and I do not think it matters anyways because if they exist, none of them show anything other than utter indifference to this universe or its contents. And I think that most people believe in deities, but at their own convenience. ---
**Author:** ![Annadroid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@Annadroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annadroid)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/207 "2016-01-03T20:40:39Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > CGI. (The G stands for God.) Computer God Imaging? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2016, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/208 "2016-01-03T21:48:24Z")
Hmm. Ancient aliens from outer space plant a devise into a donkey so that it can utter just a few words to one man. In a universe this crazy, we don’t need God or Jesus. Aliens are obviously running the show. ---
**Author:** ![Annadroid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@Annadroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annadroid)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2016, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/209 "2016-01-03T22:03:47Z")
lol Well, obviously those aliens are no better at running things than we humans, then. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2016, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/210 "2016-01-03T23:56:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think we need to understand what we mean when we say, “Scientifically impossible.” > > What I mean is: “No hypothesis could account for the observed events without violating the natural physical laws of the universe.” . . . Most of us would go a little farther, and say “No hypothesis could account for the claim without violating a very large part of our understanding of the physical world.” It would violate too much of what we know about biology, anatomy, zoology, etc. It doesn’t “violate the natural physical laws of the universe” for there to be a 800 foot tall giraffe. But it violates whole gobs of physiological laws. Such a creature cannot exist, and there are hundreds of reasons why. Ditto for talking donkeys. (Just for one, they don’t have the mouth-parts, palate, vocal cords, etc.) (That said, I’ve heard some remarkably articulate braying — and no, that ain’t a shot at anybody! I’m serious. Donkeys can make some really complex vocalizations.) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2016, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/211 "2016-01-04T05:14:08Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > It’s not just a few Protestant sects. It’s pretty much mainstream Christian theology, e.g.: > > [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc\_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm) Yes. But you’re not understanding what your quote means, In _The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church_, then-Cardinal Ratzinger published, as part of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, a worthwhile read on the subject. As this document teaches: > [@](#): > > The literal sense is not to be confused with the “literalist” sense to which fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to translate a text word for word in order to obtain its literal sense. One must understand the text according to the literary conventions of the time. When a text is metaphorical, its literal sense is not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word translation (e.g. “Let your loins be girt”: Lk. 12:35), but that which corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms (“Be ready for action”). When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction. > The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context. The principal task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making use of all the resources of literary and historical research, with a view to defining the literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible accuracy (cf. Divino Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl., 550). To this end, the study of ancient literary genres is particularly necessary (ibid. 560). Cite. Moreover: > [@](#): > > Catholic exegesis does not claim any particular scientific method as its own. It recognizes that one of the aspects of biblical texts is that they are the work of human authors, who employed both their own capacities for expression and the means which their age and social context put at their disposal. Consequently Catholic exegesis freely makes use of the scientific methods and approaches which allow a better grasp of the meaning of texts in their linguistic, literary, sociocultural, religious and historical contexts, while explaining them as well through studying their sources and attending to the personality of each author (cf. Divino Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl. 557). Catholic exegesis actively contributes to the development of new methods and to the progress of research. > What characterizes Catholic exegesis is that it deliberately places itself within the living tradition of the church, whose first concern is fidelity to the revelation attested by the Bible. Modern hermeneutics has made clear, as we have noted, the impossibility of interpreting a text without starting from a “pre-understanding” of one type or another. > [@](#): > > The Bible says that God, not some advanced alien technology, made the donkey speak. You’re the one who is bringing stuff in from left field, or should I say, outer space. Actually, no, this is not an accurate summary of the discussion. As you may recall, **Robert** averred that the talking donkey story was an example of a “scientifically impossible,” event. To this, I responded, disagreeing: I suggested that the observations related to the donkey could be explained in ways that don’t violate the laws of the universe as we understand those laws, nor is it “impossible,” in the other ways discussed above. So please be clear on what I am arguing, and what I claim: I don’t say the donkey talked, much less that God made the donkey talk. I say that the _reported observation_ of a talking donkey is not a scientifically impossible observation, because I can advance several hypotheses that could explain what was seen without recourse to the supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2016, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/212 "2016-01-04T05:25:53Z")
> [@DrForrester](#): > > Right. Paraphrasing, Robert163 said that it would be “delusional” to believe that a donkey could speak. You said that the person need not be delusional, because the person might be honestly, lucidly reporting that the donkey was speaking because of a misunderstanding of what was “really” happening. No, your paraphrase elides a key exchange. You have quoted the word delusional, as though the crux of disagreement was the possibility of delusion. It’s not. My key, and pretty much only, heartburn arises from the use of “scientific impossibility.” > [@](#): > > But, if you did allow the error in reporting here & not anywhere else, we end up with a mistake in the Bible that really is 100% ignorable. Fine. The person isn’t deluded. You win this point. I agree with your logic. But, this, in my opinion, isn’t very helpful, because a deluded person isn’t the most likely explanation for the passage. > > The most likely explanation, in my personal opinion, is that the whole passage is fictional. Made up. Yes, I agree. But since I am not debating “the most likely explanation,” I am unmoved by this. I am debating whether other, very unlikely explanations are “scientifically impossible.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2016, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/213 "2016-01-04T05:27:35Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Most of us would go a little farther, and say “No hypothesis could account for the claim without violating a very large part of our understanding of the physical world.” It would violate too much of what we know about biology, anatomy, zoology, etc. > > It doesn’t “violate the natural physical laws of the universe” for there to be a 800 foot tall giraffe. But it violates whole gobs of physiological laws. Such a creature cannot exist, and there are hundreds of reasons why. Ditto for talking donkeys. > > (Just for one, they don’t have the mouth-parts, palate, vocal cords, etc.) > > (That said, I’ve heard some remarkably articulate braying — and no, that ain’t a shot at anybody! I’m serious. Donkeys can make some really complex vocalizations.) Well, I can imagine surgically implanted speakers and DNA manipulation. Neither of those are scientifically impossible, are they? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2016, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/214 "2016-01-04T05:28:54Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And I think it is very naive to think that societal and family influence wouldn’t cause at least a portion of people polled to give what they thought would be a “right” answer-remember the link **you with the face** provided back in post #157? If you haven’t read it, please do so, because it is rather enlightening. Yes, I’ve read it. It goes to the Wikipedia article about Social Desirability Bias. That article alone certainly does not give us any certain reason to believe that the poll result which is at the center of this thread is inaccurate. The 86% figure or thereabouts holds for anonymous polls, in which no one has any motivation to provide answers that are social desirable. An unconscious bias is possible, but certainly there’s no solid evidence of such. Some people seem to think that they know exactly how respondents are being socially pressured, in what direction, and by what means, but nobody has backed up such statements. The United States isn’t the only country out there. In the Soviet Union, identifying oneself as religious could be punishable by death or other very bad things. Nonetheless throughout the Soviet period vast numbers of people continued to believe in God and state publicly that they did so. The pressure in the Soviet Union was certainly entirely in the direction of pushing people to not believe in God, so it can scarcely explain why people would believe. ---
**Author:** ![DrForrester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8edcca/32.png) [@DrForrester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrForrester)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2016, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/215 "2016-01-04T11:32:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, I can imagine surgically implanted speakers and DNA manipulation. Neither of those are scientifically impossible, are they? No, they are not scientifically impossible events. As I said before, twice, I concede to your logic. I just don’t see that it gets us any further forward. If you do, please proceed. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2016, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/216 "2016-01-04T11:41:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, I can imagine surgically implanted speakers and DNA manipulation. Neither of those are scientifically impossible, are they? A bit excessive. Fly halfway across the galaxy, implant speakers, manipulate the DNA, brain and vocal cords, all to get a donkey to speak like 2 sentences. How do they stop the donkey from talking after that? Certainly all his friends would noticed a talking donkey once he got back to town. ---
**Author:** ![TheAllSeeingEye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/919ad9/32.png) [@TheAllSeeingEye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheAllSeeingEye)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2016, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/217 "2016-01-04T12:22:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > In the Soviet Union, identifying oneself as religious could be punishable by death. If this were true there would be no orthodox churches or mosques, no priesthood, no relics. And yet Miraculously, every country allied to or part of the soviet union has thousands of perfectly preserved medieval churches, some painstakingy rebuilt by the Russian communist government after their destruction at the hands of Germans. hundreds of thousands of trained priests, millions of faithful, not just one pope either, but a patriarch in every other country. It’s Miraculous, that is, unless you live in our shared reality where your death sentences for church going never actually happened. Even the most repugnanty abusive cults, such as those primitive orthodox who castrated themselves and loved to run riot and physically attack other cults were given the option of emigrating to Canada, instead of being ‘killed’. Shall we now talk about what happened to the Mormons in America? Why did they end up all the way over there ? lol ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2016, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/218 "2016-01-04T12:53:32Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Yes, I’ve read it. It goes to the Wikipedia article about Social Desirability Bias. That article alone certainly does not give us any certain reason to believe that the poll result which is at the center of this thread is inaccurate. The 86% figure or thereabouts holds for anonymous polls, in which no one has any motivation to provide answers that are social desirable. It certainly holds for anonymous polls, especially ones that require respondents to supply answers in real-time to a person (rather than mailing in a paper survey). > [@](#): > > Some people seem to think that they know exactly how respondents are being socially pressured, in what direction, and by what means, but nobody has backed up such statements. Really? The central tenants of Christianity (and Islam for that matter) inherently pressure people to believe through the coercive idea that eternal damnation awaits those who don’t. But you can’t even accept that there is _social pressure_ to believe? I guess proselyters and missionaries are mythical creatures like Sasquatch. I guess my parents and in-laws and other family members, who regularly remind me that God exists and it’s crazy to believe otherwise, are just isolated cases. > [@](#): > > The United States isn’t the only country out there. Yes, but it is the only country relevant to the poll under discussion. I would expect self-reported belief in God to be lower in countries where religiosity has not been promoted by the state. ---
**Author:** ![TheAllSeeingEye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/919ad9/32.png) [@TheAllSeeingEye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheAllSeeingEye)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2016, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/219 "2016-01-04T13:11:53Z")
YouWithTheFace you can have any religion you want as long as it’s fundamentalist tax-thieving evangelical christianity. Altogether now - # … and the home of the … bravvvvvvvvve ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2016, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670/220 "2016-01-04T14:22:06Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > But do I think everyone who professes a belief in God are like my parents? No. Most Christians are not as devout as my parents. A good deal of them have never read a single book of the Bible. Do you have a cite for this? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-americans-really-believe-in-god-or-do-they-just-say-they-do/741670.md?page=12)