What's new

Deep Religiosity, Extreme Ignorance!

RiazHaq

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
6,611
Reaction score
70
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I have often wondered that if the Taliban, al Qaeda militants and their sympathizers really understood the teachings of Islam, would they commit or endorse some of the most horrific acts of murder and mayhem against innocent civilians, and then justify such acts based on religion? I have also had similar questions in my mind about the hateful words and actions of some of the followers of other faiths as well. It seems to me that answers to my questions are beginning to emerge from a recent Pew survey that concludes that deeply religious people are also deeply ignorant about religion. What is even more surprising about this poll is that atheists are more knowledgeable about religions than the self-professed deeply religious people.

A Pew poll conducted in 2002 showed that the United States stands out as the most religious among the wealthy western nations for the religiosity of its people.

Religion is much more important to Americans than to people living in other wealthy nations. Six-in-ten (59%) people in the U.S. say religion plays a very important role in their lives. This is roughly twice the percentage of self-avowed religious people in Canada (30%), and an even higher proportion when compared with Japan and Western Europe. Americans' views are closer to people in developing nations, such as India and Pakistan, than to the citizens of developed nations. The poll showed that 92% of respondents in India and 91% in Pakistan say religion is important to them.

A new poll conducted by Pew now reveals that Americans are by all measures a deeply religious people, but they are also deeply ignorant about religion.

Researchers from the independent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life phoned more than 3,400 Americans and asked them 32 questions about the Bible, Christianity and other world religions, famous religious figures and the constitutional principles governing religion in public life.

On average, people who took the survey answered half the questions incorrectly, and many flubbed even questions about their own faith.

Those who scored the highest were atheists and agnostics, as well as two religious minorities: Jews and Mormons. The results were the same even after the researchers controlled for factors like age and racial differences.

“Even after all these other factors, including education, are taken into account, atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons still outperform all the other religious groups in our survey,” said Greg Smith, a senior researcher at Pew.

Among the topics covered in the survey were: Where was Jesus born? What is Ramadan? Whose writings inspired the Protestant Reformation? Which Biblical figure led the exodus from Egypt? What religion is the Dalai Lama? Joseph Smith? Mother Teresa? In most cases, the format was multiple choice.

The researchers said that the questionnaire was designed to represent a breadth of knowledge about religion, but was not intended to be regarded as a list of the most essential facts about the subject. Most of the questions were easy, but a few were difficult enough to discern which respondents were highly knowledgeable.

On questions about the Bible and Christianity, the groups that answered the most right were Mormons and white evangelical Protestants.

On questions about world religions, like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism, the groups that did the best were atheists, agnostics and Jews.

One finding that may grab the attention of policy makers is that most Americans wrongly believe that anything having to do with religion is prohibited in public schools.

An overwhelming 89 percent of respondents, asked whether public school teachers are permitted to lead a class in prayer, correctly answered no.

But fewer than one of four knew that a public school teacher is permitted “to read from the Bible as an example of literature.” And only about one third knew that a public school teacher is permitted to offer a class comparing the world’s religions.

The survey’s authors concluded that there was “widespread confusion” about “the line between teaching and preaching.”

Mr. Smith said the survey appeared to be the first comprehensive effort at assessing the basic religious knowledge of Americans, so it is impossible to tell whether they are more or less informed than in the past.

The phone interviews were conducted in English and Spanish in May and June. There were not enough Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu respondents to say how those groups ranked.

Clergy members who are concerned that their congregants know little about the essentials of their own faith will no doubt be appalled by some of these findings:

* Fifty-three percent of Protestants could not identify Martin Luther as the man who started the Protestant Reformation.

* Forty-five percent of Catholics did not know that their church teaches that the consecrated bread and wine in holy communion are not merely symbols, but actually become the body and blood of Christ.

* Forty-three percent of Jews did not know that Maimonides, one of the foremost rabbinical authorities and philosophers, was Jewish.

The question about Maimonides was the one that the fewest people answered correctly. But 51 percent knew that Joseph Smith was Mormon, and 82 percent knew that Mother Teresa was Roman Catholic.

I am not aware of a similar survey ever done in Pakistan to gauge Pakistanis' knowledge of Islam in particular, and other religions in general. I think such a survey would be a worthwhile exercise.

Haq's Musings: Deeply Religious People Profoundly Ignorant About Religion?
 
.
Christianity and Americans DONT go together. In fact, Christianity probably feels offended being associated to Americans.

The average American doesn't even know the meaning of Christmas and the only reason they take part is for 'gift-giving' and 'Santa Claus' and other mumbo-jumbo that has nothing to do with Christianity.

They have to make a religious event "fun" so that people would take part. For example on Easter, a holiday that has NOTHING to do with eggs, the whole country paints a bunch of eggs and hides them around and start egg-hunts. AS IF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH JESUS'S RESURRECTION. LOL.

There is a sizable percentage of those who do go to church, who do take part in prayer and congregation, and even do fast. Sure, a bunch do believe in Jehovah/God/Upper-being, and the concept of Hell and Heaven, but do nothing further than that. No fasting, no prayer, but a giant gold cross hanging from their necks to show off.

In other words, lazy, spoiled, and just plain embarrassing to Christianity.
 
.
Christianity and Americans DONT go together. In fact, Christianity probably feels offended being associated to Americans.

The average American doesn't even know the meaning of Christmas and the only reason they take part is for 'gift-giving' and 'Santa Claus' and other mumbo-jumbo that has nothing to do with Christianity.

They have to make a religious event "fun" so that people would take part. For example on Easter, a holiday that has NOTHING to do with eggs, the whole country paints a bunch of eggs and hides them around and start egg-hunts. AS IF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH JESUS'S RESURRECTION. LOL.

There is a sizable percentage of those who do go to church, who do take part in prayer and congregation, and even do fast. Sure, a bunch do believe in Jehovah/God/Upper-being, and the concept of Hell and Heaven, but do nothing further than that. No fasting, no prayer, but a giant gold cross hanging from their necks to show off.

In other words, lazy, spoiled, and just plain embarrassing to Christianity.

I second that. Americans are more into popular culture then Christianity. I have never met a religious Christian in my whole life living here. I probably know more about Christianity then most Americans. ;)
 
.
Lol reminds me of Dr. Zakir Naik once said we Muslims are more christians then christians.

No I disagree there are many christians who are very religious I've met some here they are very nice people.

But yeah the new generation that is 15-25 years are meant for pop culture.
 
.
Christianity and Americans DONT go together. In fact, Christianity probably feels offended being associated to Americans

You don't understand the US if you really think like the quote above and it seems nothing about the PEW poll Mr. Haq cites has made a impression on you.

I have often wondered that if the Taliban, al Qaeda militants and their sympathizers really understood the teachings of Islam, would they commit or endorse some of the most horrific acts of murder and mayhem against innocent civilians, and then justify such acts based on religion?

Mr. Haq, isn't religion that which those who claim to be adherents, practice? I mean, can we or ought we accept that we must leave religion blameless and instead put all blame on adherents for the failing of religion - - Did communism really have no relationship with what cummunists did ?? Can we say with credibility that communism is not bad , but communists are?

If it turns out that we cannot indeed assert such things as religion is seperate from adgerents and expect that our readers will not lose respect for our ability to reason - what then must we do? The Wahabi Takfiri are very clear, it's the rest of us who are wishy washy, indeed, if we by our actions (practice, dogma, doctrine) do not infuse substance, that is to say, if we do not see faith as a "verb" rather than a "noun", shall we not be saying something about Islam and the experience of being Muslim?
 
.
Mr. Haq, isn't religion that which those who claim to be adherents, practice? I mean, can we or ought we accept that we must leave religion blameless and instead put all blame on adherents for the failing of religion - - Did communism really have no relationship with what cummunists did ?? Can we say with credibility that communism is not bad , but communists are?

I am not talking about separating religion from all of its adherents...but I am arguing that we must not allow a small minority of extremist Muslims to define and represent the mainstream Islam and all of its followers.

In other words, I see the hard-core Taliban and al Qaeda as an aberration within Islam that the rest of us must reject to reclaim our faith from them.
 
.
“Even after all these other factors, including education, are taken into account, atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons still outperform all the other religious groups in our survey,” said Greg Smith, a senior researcher at Pew.

This part seems to be interesting.

Apparently atheists and agnostics are some of the people with the most knowledge of different religions. One could have thought they would be the least since their obvious indifference to religion.

Could this be because they have understood religion the most, and then turned Agnostic/atheist since they realized religion is a myth, and really does no good in this world. That all bhagwan/god/khuda are human inventions, created to fulfill various emotional and psychological wants or needs, as Sigmund Freud said.
 
.
I am arguing that we must not allow a small minority of extremist Muslims to define and represent the mainstream Islam and all of its followers.

In other words, I see the hard-core Taliban and al Qaeda as an aberration within Islam that the rest of us must reject to reclaim our faith from them.


See, that begs the question, who and what are Muslims? And this is where the Wahabi Takfiri are very powerful - in other words, they have developed an entire ideology, that answers questions such as WHO are Muslims (and therefore who is/are not) They even have answers to What are Muslims (Do's and Don'ts) They even have an answer to what is the most captivating aspect of politics among Muslims (who are a terribly diverse peoples), namely the politics of IDENTITY -- In addition, they have a political/judical/governance answer as well - a system, if you will.

What is it that the rest of us have? our objections?
 
.
See, that begs the question, who and what are Muslims? And this is where the Wahabi Takfiri are very powerful - in other words, they have developed an entire ideology, that answers questions such as WHO are Muslims (and therefore who is/are not) They even have answers to What are Muslims (Do's and Don'ts) They even have an answer to what is the most captivating aspect of politics among Muslims (who are a terribly diverse peoples), namely the politics of IDENTITY -- In addition, they have a political/judical/governance answer as well - a system, if you will.

What is it that the rest of us have? our objections?

I believe in a much more inclusive approach to faith that excludes only the very fringes who are engaging in extreme violence as a means of intimidating their fellow Muslims and the rest of the world.

Such inclusiveness is necessary as a means to serve the best interests of the largest numbers among Muslims who as you rightly said are very diverse in terms schools of thought (Fiqh), ethnicity, race, culture, etc. There can be and there needs to be unity in diversity for the peaceful and progressive followers of Islam to live and let live in a a highly diverse world of many faiths, races, cultures, etc.
 
.
You don't understand the US if you really think like the quote above and it seems nothing about the PEW poll Mr. Haq cites has made a impression on you.



Mr. Haq, isn't religion that which those who claim to be adherents, practice? I mean, can we or ought we accept that we must leave religion blameless and instead put all blame on adherents for the failing of religion - - Did communism really have no relationship with what cummunists did ?? Can we say with credibility that communism is not bad , but communists are?

If it turns out that we cannot indeed assert such things as religion is seperate from adgerents and expect that our readers will not lose respect for our ability to reason - what then must we do? The Wahabi Takfiri are very clear, it's the rest of us who are wishy washy, indeed, if we by our actions (practice, dogma, doctrine) do not infuse substance, that is to say, if we do not see faith as a "verb" rather than a "noun", shall we not be saying something about Islam and the experience of being Muslim?

Boris Yeltsin once said this of communism; "communism is like a pie in the sky, no point in trying to implement it on earth". Communism fails because it goes against the grain of human nature. Incentives, including monetary play an important role in how people behave. In so many religions, it is impossible for most people to understand, segregate & contextualise what is written/said in scriptures . If the original intention of any religion was to enhance & improve the lives of its adherents, then it is impossible to assume that all knowledge that was required for that to happen was available at a particular point in time & that no additional knowledge can ever accrue. People who take a relaxed attitude to religion keeping in mind the goal behind it rather than specifics are more likely to make better examples for that faith than those who choose to accept a more literal interpretation.
 
.
There can be and there needs to be unity in diversity for the peaceful and progressive followers of Islam to live and let live in a a highly diverse world of many faiths, races, cultures, etc.


That requires what the Quaid e Azam (whom some claim to be a "weak" Muslim, did not stop him for fighting for Pakistan till his last breath) promised, a respect for PLURALISM within Islam -- but of course the Wahabi Takfiri and the Deobandi reject the entire notion of Pluralism within Islam, which of course is a prerequisite for Tolerance as a societal value.

See, Mr. Haq, how does one live and let live with those who by definition see you as a abomination, Wajib ul Qatl? How do we tolerate the intolerant? Do we risk being labeled intolerant ourselves? -- I think Hobbes and Popper and Lincoln and Musharraf had it right. Which can first chicken or egg? Perhaps a different kind of "egg" --

We have arrived at a defining moment for thinking and feeling Muslims, what does it mean to be Muslim? The answer to this question in our lifetime, cannot come from the Arabia of the Wahabi, it cannot come from the Class of Ruhanian e Islam from Qom - because we already know their answers, they are bereft of FAITH as a verb and instead are declarations of exclusivist "truths" - the values these "truths" uphold leave us cold, confused and disappointed.

And so "What does it mean to be a Muslim" is a question that is serving to awaken, to bring thinking and feeling persons, to becoming conscious Muslims, Muslims by choice, not accident of birth, not nationality, not in the sense of noun as much as verb.

That will still leave the Wahabi Takfiri problem? With your permission I will suggest that as education informed by secular science is widespread in society, it is of a direct benefit to the idea of "faith" -- You will note that extremist ideas proliferate in largely illiterate societies where a particular class establishes a monopoly of the meaning and desimination of religion -- simply education is not enough, what's more important are the ideas that inform the content of education.
 
.
This part seems to be interesting.

Apparently atheists and agnostics are some of the people with the most knowledge of different religions. One could have thought they would be the least since their obvious indifference to religion.

Could this be because they have understood religion the most, and then turned Agnostic/atheist since they realized religion is a myth, and really does no good in this world. That all bhagwan/god/khuda are human inventions, created to fulfill various emotional and psychological wants or needs, as Sigmund Freud said.

I dont second that .

Atheists and Agnostics are essentially against the belief and practice of literal interpretation of the religious Dogma . Their contradictions are correct . With the development in physical sciences and technology , the mystery surrounding the working of our lives and planet has been solved .
I personally find them very boorish since all they assert can be summarized as -> What the 'sacred' texts say about Life , Death , world and humans is a myth ( as proved ) hence humanity must turn its back to the teachings and lives of the men and women who were the inspiration behind these texts . Thats too LITERAL in itself .
Atheism had always existed but the reason behind its recent assertiveness lies in the gradual decadence of thought and action resulting out of strict and narrow , at times outright 'corrupt' practice of Religion/s in the Medieval times .
 
.
The sheer amount of naivety in people just like the "educated" posters here kills me everyday. Are we sure about the meaning of religiosity and ignorance, in the context it has been put forth here?

The interpretation of meanings play a grand role in the understanding of these foundational words. The counterpart of the word religion in the Devnagari script (derived from Sanskrit) is dharm. And while the basic meaning religion is faith, dharm on the other hand means the universal principles of justice and moral codes.

So now coming to the question posed in the survey, what does it mean to ask whether a person is religious or not? Or rather how deep is his religiosity? It only means how strong is his faith in whatever he believes. And beliefs can be anything - logical or illogical, pious or sinful, lawful or unlawful. Then how is it anything to do with ignorance?

On the other hand, if you pose the same question replacing the word religion with dharm, then you are asking the right question with regard to ignorance. Then that would be asking how great is a person's ability to know and understand the universal principles of justice and moral codes. And that undoubtedly would reflect the correct answer about the level of ignorance of that person.

Religion and ignorance may go hand in hand, but dharm and ignorance cannot. And herein lies the difference that we need to understand.

Actually, the problem has always been one - the most basic one, and that we fail to see time and again. Simply put, this most basic problem is that we do not understand the correct picture of the world we live in. And the blame squarely lies on the teachings of most religions of the world that has given such an unenlightened picture of this existence to its followers, that they seem to understand things only palpably, including their believed God and themselves, failing to realize that this is the single biggest contradiction to truth and the source of all ignorance and all afflictions.

Our flawed vision of the picture of the world has dragged us through all kinds of miseries, and yet we do not draw ourselves to truth, but to religion. A religion, if it permits and encourages you to find that "Truth", is mankind's greatest savior, and at the same time the greatest curse, if it does not.
 
.
Deep religiosity will always lead to Damning ignorance until we let the religious machinery and clergy dominate the interpretation of Divine personalities and texts to the extent of suppressing our individuality and understanding of ourselves and 'others' .

No wonder , deeply religious person insulates himself/herself from studying and experiencing the SINGLE path i.e. to be better Humans in order to serve fellow Humans , limiting all his/her focus to what the men of religion in charge of religion itself , have to PROCLAIM . :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
.
The sheer amount of naivety in people just like the "educated" posters here kills me everyday. Are we sure about the meaning of religiosity and ignorance, in the context it has been put forth here?

The interpretation of meanings play a grand role in the understanding of these foundational words. The counterpart of the word religion in the Devnagari script (derived from Sanskrit) is dharm. And while the basic meaning religion is faith, dharm on the other hand means the universal principles of justice and moral codes.

So now coming to the question posed in the survey, what does it mean to ask whether a person is religious or not? Or rather how deep is his religiosity? It only means how strong is his faith in whatever he believes. And beliefs can be anything - logical or illogical, pious or sinful, lawful or unlawful. Then how is it anything to do with ignorance?

On the other hand, if you pose the same question replacing the word religion with dharm, then you are asking the right question with regard to ignorance. Then that would be asking how great is a person's ability to know and understand the universal principles of justice and moral codes. And that undoubtedly would reflect the correct answer about the level of ignorance of that person.

Religion and ignorance may go hand in hand, but dharm and ignorance cannot. And herein lies the difference that we need to understand.

Actually, the problem has always been one - the most basic one, and that we fail to see time and again. Simply put, this most basic problem is that we do not understand the correct picture of the world we live in. And the blame squarely lies on the teachings of most religions of the world that has given such an unenlightened picture of this existence to its followers, that they seem to understand things only palpably, including their believed God and themselves, failing to realize that this is the single biggest contradiction to truth and the source of all ignorance and all afflictions.

Our flawed vision of the picture of the world has dragged us through all kinds of miseries, and yet we do not draw ourselves to truth, but to religion. A religion, if it permits and encourages you to find that "Truth", is mankind's greatest savior, and at the same time the greatest curse, if it does not.

Very true :tup:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom