Johnny Skeptic

That is interesting since if you had been taken as a baby and had been raised by Muslims in Syria your opinions would most likely be much different than they are now. Your opinions, just like everyone else's opinion, are due to entirely secular factors such as family, geography, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period (This has been well-documented. I will post some of the evidence if anyone asks me to.), and yet you pretend that you are interested in evidence.

Julian

While it has been a while since I plowed my way through the very long list of studies on this topic, you are correct in that it is mostly an observation upon American society. It is also true that once the religiosity level falls below the level of fanatical or roughly equivalent the correlation becomes much less pronounced. I would also assume that the usual european proclivity of perfunctory church attendance would not count as anything that would count as functionally religious. The reason why it is largely different in europe is that you have fewer fanatics, however, the correlation is just as strong. It is just that your data simply moved out of the 'red zone.'

Julian

Julian

An anecdotal observation. While it may be valid there is no scientific reason to assume so. There is always a profound danger of personal testimonial perception influencing careful and statistically appropriate observation. I am certain, given your background, that you know this as well as anyone.

Julian

Clouseau

Utter nonsense, Julian! Oxbridge has been a primary source for senior Anglican clerics since before the Reformation (including the philosopher Wycliffe), a source of missionaries to China and Africa, and Cambridge students have been used for mission by English parishes for quite a long time. Christian Unions have been powerful factors in all the major universities, and yes, their members all sign (or used to sign) statements of faith assenting to the inerrancy of the Bible, which is the teaching of all mainstream denominations anyway. The Wesley brothers were Oxford men; and I suggest that any who think that Rowan Williams is somewhat dull of wit need help themselves- and he assents to the resurrection. I could go on, and on. This is truly a ridiculous point. One might suggest that it is only isolated, self-regarding, ignorant Americans who would bring it up, but I won't.

Julian

Sigh. I point out to Roger that his observation is a personal testimonial which has no statistical significance and your devastating counter to that is to provide more personal testimonial without statistical bearing as to why I was wrong. At least, you're inadvertently funny.

Besides, I won't presume to speak for Americans, not being one myself.

Julian

Ben C Smith

For wit, I myself prefer another Brit named Rowan, surnamed Atkinson. Nothing compares to the fourth season of Blackadder.

Ben.

Julian

I am partial to season two, myself, although 'Goes Forth' is a close second.

Blackadder: Right Baldrick, let's try again shall we? This is called 'adding'. If I have two beans, and then I add two more beans, what do I have?
Baldrick: Some beans.
Blackadder: Yes... and no. Let's try again shall we? I have two beans, then I add two more beans. What does that make?
Baldrick: A very small casserole.
Blackadder: Baldrick, the ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this. Now try again. One, two, three, four. So how many are there?
Baldrick: Three.
Blackadder: What?
Baldrick: ... and that one.
Blackadder: Three and that one. So if I add that one to the three what will I have?
Baldrick: Oh. Some beans.
Blackadder: Yes. To you Baldrick, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?

Clouseau

Personal? Do read it again.

Julian

My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you. I wish I could say the same for you. Where, in your post, do we find statistically significant numbers collected using proper sampling methods? Oh, wait. That would be NOWHERE! In other words, those are simply your observations and/or opinions. Hence 'personal.' Notice that nowhere do I say that your observations are right or wrong, this being irrelevant in this context, only that they do not carry scientific weight. Don't make me explain it again. Actually, I won't, regardless.

Julian

Clouseau

Then explain how highly intelligent people believe in the resurrection.