Poll results on biblical literalism

[Flaherty]

ABC News PrimeTime Poll. Feb. 6-10, 2004. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by ICR.

"I'm going to ask about a few stories in the Bible. Do you think that's literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word; or do you think it's meant as a lesson, but not to be taken literally?"

http://www.pollingreport.com/religion.htm

61% of nationwide adults surveyed believe the literal account of Biblical creation. 60% believe the literal story of Noah's flood.

I'm surrounded by morons. I choose to attack in all directions.

 

[Maledict]

JUMPING JELUSAFAX!

"The creation story in which the world was created in six days."

Literally true = 61%
Not Literally True = 30%
No Opinion = 8%

....I'm stunned.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Bah. They always ask about the boring Bible stories. Why does no-one ever take a poll to determine whether people believe God really has a problem with pissing against walls?

 

[geni]

I suspect that having the negative answer contain the words not and true introduces an element of bias. Perhaps a better question woud have been literaly true against (insert sutible word here) true

 

[Yahweh]

JUMPING JELUSAFAX!

"The creation story in which the world was created in six days."

Literally true = 61%
Not Literally True = 30%
No Opinion = 8%

....I'm stunned.

Seems God has a sense of humor what with creating a universe in 6 days but in a fashion where it is indistinguishable from one brought about by purely natural forces...

Romans 1:20 anyone?...

 

[Humphreys]

I'm surrounded by morons. I choose to attack in all directions.

I'd like to see the same question asked with answers separated for Europeans and Americans. I think you'd see that us Europeans - Brits especially - are not nearly as silly as 'you lot'.

Creationism is so yesterday over here.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Poll results on biblical literalism

Creationism is so yesterday over here.

Ok so could you expain the display that was in my student union yesterday? Something to do with islamic awarness week but I'm sure that all the biologists walking past didn't mind being called liars frauds and people who can't interpret evidence.

 

[Humphreys]

Re: Re: Re: Poll results on biblical literalism

Something to do with islamic awarness week but I'm sure that all the biologists walking past didn't mind being called liars frauds and people who can't interpret evidence.

Oh that's different. We aren't allowed to attack 'foreigner' religions, since that would be intolerant. We must allow Muslims to stand on our streets and preach hate against the West, but of course not vice versa, 'cause that'd be silly.

That aside, on the whole the average man in Britain does not believe the Bible is the word of god. We aren't very religious, but we do love crystals, and astrology and alternative medicine.

 

[elliotfc]

JUMPING JELUSAFAX!

"The creation story in which the world was created in six days."

Literally true = 61%
Not Literally True = 30%
No Opinion = 8%

....I'm stunned.

All I can say is that...I'd vote for literally true...and I don't think it is literally true.

I'd take the answer "not literally true" to mean that it is all wrong.

See, if there was an option *figuratively true*, along with an option *completely false*, I'd think you'd have a different statistic.

My point? It's a poorly formed poll that seeks to create a dichotomy with a no opinion attached.

-Elliot

 

[Brian the Snail]

All I can say is that...I'd vote for literally true...and I don't think it is literally true.

I'd take the answer "not literally true" to mean that it is all wrong.

See, if there was an option *figuratively true*, along with an option *completely false*, I'd think you'd have a different statistic.

My point? It's a poorly formed poll that seeks to create a dichotomy with a no opinion attached.

-Elliot

I disagree- I think the first paragraph makes it pretty clear what you should vote for, when it says:

"I'm going to ask about a few stories in the Bible. [See below.] Do you think that's literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word; or do you think it's meant as a lesson, but not to be taken literally?"

So, question 1 becomes "Is the story of Noah etc. etc. literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word; or do you think it's meant as a lesson, not to be taken literally." According to the poll, 60% of Americans believe the former. As you seem to believe the latter, then you should vote no.

Also note that the fieldwork was done by ICR (the Institute of Creation Research) who basically believe that these stories are literally true, in the context of "scientific creationism". So I think the questions are directly addressed to this issue, rather than to more liberal readings of the bible.

I agree about it posing a false dichotomy, though, since it excludes a third option, "it's not literally true, it's not meant as a lesson, it's an ancient myth (one of many) and should be treated as such" (or words to that affect). This is option I would have voted for, since I suspect that the original writers didn't mean it as a lesson, but meant for it to be taken literally. So I object to saying that it's "meant as a lesson", and I think that it's poorly worded in this sense.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'd take the answer "not literally true" to mean that it is all wrong.


-Elliot

Since " not literally true " clearly doesn't mean " 100% " wrong ", I find it interesting that you find it necessary to lie by stating that you do believe it is " literally true "; which does clearly mean " 100% " true....

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

All I can say is that...I'd vote for literally true...and I don't think it is literally true.

I'd take the answer "not literally true" to mean that it is all wrong.

See, if there was an option *figuratively true*, along with an option *completely false*, I'd think you'd have a different statistic.

My point? It's a poorly formed poll that seeks to create a dichotomy with a no opinion attached.

I think *someone* has a problem with reading comprehension...

Which is an important point, actually. If a significant minority (or even a majority) of people are not capable of interpreting the survey questions with any competence, that would rather invalidate the results, wouldn't it?

 

[Martin]

Which is an important point, actually. If a significant minority (or even a majority) of people are not capable of interpreting the survey questions with any competence, that would rather invalidate the results, wouldn't it?

Heh. As soon as I read the OP, my first thought was 'don't forget to account for the 20% or so who didn't understand the question'.

 

[Gestahl]

Other good nuggets

"Which comes closest to your opinion about displays of religion in public places or government buildings: it is acceptable to display only Christian symbols, it is acceptable to display Christian symbols as long as symbols of other religions are also displayed, or it is unacceptable to display any religious symbols at all?"

Acceptable to display only Christian symbols: 10 %

Acceptable to display Christian symbols,
as long as others displayed, too: 58%

Unacceptable to display any religious symbols 29%

No opinion: 3%

Just above this was...

"Display of a monument to the Ten Commandments in a public school or government building"

Approve: 70%
Disapprove: 29%
Don't Care: 1%

"Display of a monument with a verse from the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic religion, in a public school or government building"

Approve: 33%
Disapprove: 64%
Don't Care: 3%

"You say one thing then you do another, you got it all wrong but you blame it on your mother..."

Americans suck.

 

[Renfield]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Poll results on biblical literalism

I'd like to see the same question asked with answers separated for Europeans and Americans. I think you'd see that us Europeans - Brits especially - are not nearly as silly as 'you lot'.

Creationism is so yesterday over here.

You pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed, English, giant, twerp, scumbag, f***-face, dickhead, a**hole.

Well, would you like to know what you'd be without us, the good ol' U.S. of A. to protect you? I'll tell you. The smallest f***ing province in the Russian Empire, that's what. So don't call me stupid, lady. Just thank me.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poll results on biblical literalism

You pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed, English, giant, twerp, scumbag, f***-face, dickhead, a**hole.

Well, would you like to know what you'd be without us, the good ol' U.S. of A. to protect you? I'll tell you. The smallest f***ing province in the Russian Empire, that's what. So don't call me stupid, lady. Just thank me.

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#333333 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#333333><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Upchurch:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported for language.

I have edited it appropriately, as per forum rules. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks.

As always, this decision may be appealed to Linda[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

 

[Riddick]

61% of nationwide adults surveyed believe the literal account of Biblical creation. 60% believe the literal story of Noah's flood.

I'm surrounded by morons. I choose to attack in all directions.

good luck, pawn

 

[Maledict]

Re: Re: Poll results on biblical literalism

good luck, pawn

Found any evidence yet?

 

[Humphreys]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Poll results on biblical literalism

You pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed, English, giant, twerp, scumbag, f***-face, dickhead, a**hole.

Well, would you like to know what you'd be without us, the good ol' U.S. of A. to protect you? I'll tell you. The smallest f***ing province in the Russian Empire, that's what. So don't call me stupid, lady. Just thank me.

I'm embarassed for you.

We are stupid in a different way you muppet. As I explained below:

We aren't very religious, but we do love crystals, and astrology and alternative medicine.

 

[Gregor]

Brian the snail

The researching entity was NOT the Institute For Creation Research, it was the Internation Communications Research organization, a professional polling company. Check out www.icrsurvey.com

I note the confusion with the acronym.