MRBI poll of Irish Catholics - 7% don't believe in God!

Delirium

More than one in five Irish Catholics do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus or that God created the universe, according to the Ipsos MRBI 50th anniversary poll.

It found also that 7 per cent of Irish Catholics do not even believe in God.

When it comes to making serious moral decisions, more than three-quarters (78 per cent) of Irish Catholics follow their own conscience rather than church teaching (17 per cent). Almost half of Irish Catholics (45 per cent) do not believe in Hell while almost a fifth (18 per cent) do not believe that God created man.

When it comes to Mass attendance, the poll found 34 per cent of Irish Catholics did so on a weekly basis, with 16 per cent “rarely/never” attending.

Full article

Just more evidence that a large amount of Irish people are just "cultural Catholics".

Dades

Michael Nugent

Those figures broadly reflect those in a poll published a few months ago.

For me this is the most worrying part of this poll:

One poll question suggested there were “two main schools of thought regarding how mankind came into being – one being God created man, and the other being Darwin’s theory of human evolution”. Most Christian denominations today see these propositions as complementary, ie that creation was followed by evolution.

The poll found that 56 per cent of all poll respondents (of all or no religion) believe God created man, with 18 per cent believing in evolution. Seven per cent believe in both while 7 per cent believe in neither and 12 per cent didn’t know.

Clearly there is confusion here as the poll also found in answer to another question that 80 per cent of Irish Catholics (representing 90 per cent of those polled) believe God created man.

That's only one in four Irish people saying that they believe in evolution, and that includes those who believe in God-directed evolution.

Dades

Michael Nugent wrote: »

That's only one in four Irish people saying that they believe in evolution, and that includes those who believe in God-directed evolution.

I'd say that has more to do with the general public's distinct lack of knowledge/interest in evolution.

If they were to actively reject it, having had it explained to them (or read about it) then there'd be cause for concern. Otherwise it's just an easily dismissed concept they heard about 30 years ago in biology class.

equivariant

Its astonishing and frightening that only 25% of Irish people believe in evolution as an explanation for the existence of the species homo sapiens. Apparently I live in a nation full of delusional reality deniers - depressing

Michael Nugent

Dades wrote: »

I'd say that has more to do with the general public's distinct lack of knowledge/interest in evolution.

If they were to actively reject it, having had it explained to them (or read about it) then there'd be cause for concern. Otherwise it's just an easily dismissed concept they heard about 30 years ago in biology class.

Even if that was to be the explanation, it would still be worrying.

magicbastarder

at what point in the irish school curriculum is evolution taught? is it taught?

Grudaire

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Those figures broadly reflect those in a poll published a few months ago.

For me this is the most worrying part of this poll:



That's only one in four Irish people saying that they believe in evolution, and that includes those who believe in God-directed evolution.

Believing God had a hand in creating man and believing in creationism are different things.

I think most Irish people would believe in some fluffy mix whereby it's evolution guided by God.

ShooterSF

I'm sure when Dara O'Brien was coming up with his joke about not believing everything the church taught but still being catholic, he thought he had safely exaggerated it to absurd levels by saying and I'm paraphrasing here "I don't believe in god but I'm still catholic like."

_GOD_

Aw

seamus

Statistics fun time:

No. of Irish people who marked "No religion" on the 2011 census: 173,180
No. of Irish Catholics who do not believe in God (by census figures): 246,790

The no. of people claiming to be Catholic atheists is at least 1.5 times the no. of, uh, atheist atheists.

*weep*

magicbastarder wrote: »

at what point in the irish school curriculum is evolution taught? is it taught?

It wasn't mentioned in any science course I did until honours leaving cert biology. It wasn't like I'd never heard of it before, but I wouldn't say I understood it properly. Even at LC level, it was very much a "this happens, it's a fact", with very little delving into it.

Science is not a core subject in secondary school, so most pupils could conceiveably go through the Irish school system without anyone ever having even attempted to explain evolution to them.

Which probably explains why so few people believe in it. When you have religions telling you it's wrong and evil and nobody else telling you otherwise, then you'll probably go with the religious guys.

Sarky

Most of what I knew about evolution before college, I learned from science programs on telly.

magicbastarder

seamus wrote: »

It wasn't mentioned in any science course I did until honours leaving cert biology. It wasn't like I'd never heard of it before, but I wouldn't say I understood it properly. Even at LC level, it was very much a "this happens, it's a fact", with very little delving into it.

when i was doing my mock leaving cert physics, the question came up 'what is a photon?'
i wrote 'an electromagnetic gauge boson' and was marked wrong because the right answer is 'a packet of energy'.

Dades

magicbastarder wrote: »

i wrote 'an electromagnetic gauge boson' and was marked wrong because the right answer is 'a packet of energy'.

A clear case of teaching "what to think" rather than "how to think".

Galvasean

seamus wrote: »

It wasn't mentioned in any science course I did until honours leaving cert biology.

It was glossed over rather shoddily in my Junior Cert. biology book, complete with 'peppered moth' example. Since there were so many optional questions on the paper, I think it would actually have been possible to get an A without even knowing evolution was on the curriculum.
Not that evolution as the only thing taught like that; Pretty much every science topic at JC level was dished out in simplistically vague terms with a view to memorise as opposed to understand.
It's weird. I hated science subjects in school due to the way they were taught. I find them bloody well fascinating now!

seamus

This is the entirety of the "evolution" section in the Leaving Cert Biology syllabus:

Definition of "evolution". Theory of Natural Selection. Evidence from any one source.

Granted it's contained within a large enough unit talking about genetics, but the above seems like the kind of thing that's covered in one page of a textbook.

The Junior Cert Science syllabus contains no mention of evolution. Like it's some kind of complicated and niche topic. That's pretty worrying.

Delirium

Galvasean wrote: »

It was glossed over rather shoddily in my Junior Cert. biology book, complete with 'peppered moth' example. Since there were so many optional questions on the paper, I think it would actually have been possible to get an A without even knowing evolution was on the curriculum.
Not that evolution as the only thing taught like that; Pretty much every science topic at JC level was dished out in simplistically vague terms with a view to memorise as opposed to understand.
It's weird. I hated science subjects in school due to the way they were taught. I find them bloody well fascinating now!

That sentence meant something entirely different thanks to a certain thread in this forum :pac:

Galvasean

koth wrote: »

That sentence meant something entirely different thanks to a certain thread in this forum :pac:

Freudian slip?

Fluorescence

No surprises there, really. Why follow those pesky church teachings when they don't fit with your lifestyle? Don't believe in hell because your way of life would mean you earn a place there. But still Catholic because communion/confirmation money is handy, and church weddings are nice and all.

Religious for the sake of it types, the lot of em. I can respect those who examine all the evidence and come to their own conclusions (be that religious or non-religious) but cultural Catholics should be ashamed of themselves.

General Relativity

magicbastarder wrote: »

when i was doing my mock leaving cert physics, the question came up 'what is a photon?'
i wrote 'an electromagnetic gauge boson' and was marked wrong because the right answer is 'a packet of energy'.

Day 1, Lecture 1, Sentence 1; Welcome! Everything you learned during leaving cert. Physics is wrong or outdated.

PopePalpatine

Dades wrote: »

A clear case of teaching "what to think" rather than "how to think".

I have a theory that arose from the Catholic Church's stranglehold on education. Teaching children how to think would lead to some questioning Catholicism.

shruikan2553

I looked at a friends biology book and it only had a small paragraph about evolution saying that it and creationism can live side by side.

magicbastarder wrote: »

when i was doing my mock leaving cert physics, the question came up 'what is a photon?'
i wrote 'an electromagnetic gauge boson' and was marked wrong because the right answer is 'a packet of energy'.

You cant expect the poor person correcting your exam to actually read your answer instead of glancing to see if one of the answers given to him is there.

General Relativity wrote: »

Day 1, Lecture 1, Sentence 1; Welcome! Everything you learned during leaving cert. Physics is wrong or outdated.

We were told the exact same in both college and in leaving cert (except it was about the JC). Out physics teacher in secondary school was strongly against the "learn some definitions and write them out" but knew it was exactly how you passed the exam. He tried to deviate when he could but he said his focus was getting us to do well in our exams.

Hotblack Desiato

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I looked at a friends biology book and it only had a small paragraph about evolution saying that it and creationism can live side by side.

WHAT?!?! That's like saying that round earthers and flat earthers have equally valid theories, when ALL the empirical evidence points against one and towards the other.

ShooterSF

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I looked at a friends biology book and it only had a small paragraph about evolution saying that it and creationism can live side by side.

But that's illogical! You can suggest that religion and evolution can live side by side. But two differing theories to one problem cannot live side by side. One (or both) have to be wrong.

Chuck Stone

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Teaching children how to think would lead to some questioning Catholicism.

The Catholic church is not alone there.

Schools as we know them aren't really interested in teaching children how to think critically - when has an institution ever sought to be questioned by those who 'feed' it?

Schools are essentially 'education camps' - they train children to be ready for their future role in the society into which they are born at that given time in history.

Yes schools teach children how to do maths and English but the principle thing being taught is that not submitting to authority and not being prepared for 'your place' is intolerable to those in power.

Hotblack Desiato

Agreed, Shooter.

Contrary to popular belief (well, what the people who use the term 'militant atheist' think),

SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Sorry for SHOUTING btw

Science believes postulates contends that the universe was created in the Big Bang. It does not specify how or why the Big Bang occurred.*

Similarly, evolution is accepted by most non-nutty Christian sects, in view of the evidence available, and that it is not incompatible with the view that the universe was created by a deity, or that life was created by a deity, or even that humanity (or something similar) was the intended end goal of the deity that supposedly kicked the whole thing off.


* it also, by definition, given that observations prior to the Big Bang (if anything existed) are impossible, remains silent on the possibility of previous universe(s) having existed and possibly collapsed/destroyed themselves prior to the Big Bang. A cyclical Big Bang/Big Crunch endless creation and death of universes has a certain appeal, even though we can have no evidence of it. I understand that the Big Crunch theory (1970s) isn't widely accepted any more, however, and the expansion of the universe is regarded as accelerating and unstoppable, so we're back to the previous idea of the heat death of the universe

Even if only one universe is possible over infinite time within our dimensions however, this cannot exclude the possibility of multiple universes existing in multiple dimensions. But by definition, these universes should they exist must remain unknowable to us.

This is the 'uncertaincy' Dawkins talks of when he says he's only a 90% gnostic (knowing for certain) atheist. We can postulate** speculate the existence of parallel dimensions and universes but cannot know of them. Perhaps the parallel universes have gods, but they'd have to be some gods to be able to transcend the dimensional barriers and have any knowledge of or influence on this universe




** Dammit, that's twice in this post I've used this word in the what-people-think-it-means sense and not the what it actually means sense, and had to correct myself

Duggys Housemate

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The Catholic church is not alone there.

Schools as we know them aren't really interested in teaching children how to think critically - when has an institution ever sought to be questioned by those who 'feed' it?

Schools are essentially 'education camps' - they train children to be ready for their future role in the society into which they are born at that given time in history.

Yes schools teach children how to do maths and English but the principle thing being taught is that not submitting to authority and not being prepared for 'your place' is intolerable to those in power.

Yawn, cliched rubbish. All you need for "critical thinking" is the ability to read, which is taught in school. Knowledge must be taught too - four year olds know nothing. Eighteen year olds know lots, or should. I find the kind of people who think education as "training" tend to oppose Irish being taught, but it has no practical value, it is the transmission of culture.

let me apply some critical thinking: where is michael Nugents link?

EDIT: here, Iona.

So lets try something else. Using critical thinking explain why the reporting on the Evolution issue by Iona, and interpreted here, is biased at worst and badly worded at best?

Actually that course would be a good one.

Hotblack Desiato

Over half of Irish people attend Mass at least once a month, according to poll

That's the most fanciful thing I've heard in years. It's just not true. They know it. We know it.

So explain to me why the RCC is maintaining a death grip on its schools? Clearly it is because they believe it is their only way to gain believers in the future. Impressionable young minds and all that. Without control of schools they are toast, control of adult sexual 'morality' is long gone.

Got my daughter's junior infants worksheets for the month of November back today. Printed on the bottom of the pages is stuff like 'Thank you God for our class' etc. Makes me want to puke. But it's a great school apart from the oul' god indoctrination stuff. CoI is the nearest you get to secular education round here. I can't find it in my heart to criticise what they do, because like me, they're a small oppressed minority too... and if it wasn't for them then there'd be no choice other than RCC or (shudder) Gaelscoil.

Chuck Stone

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Yawn, cliched rubbish.

Would you mind being a good sport and addressing the points that are 'cliched rubbish' individually?

Ta.

Duggys Housemate

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Would you mind being a good sport and addressing the points that are 'cliched rubbish' individually?

Ta.

I did address your puerile points in the rest of the text after the cliched rubbish bit.

Chuck Stone

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

I did address your puerile points in the rest of the text after the cliched rubbish bit.

You didn't. Quoting what I wrote and responding with a rant is not addressing my individual points.

You seem quite annoyed. Have I hit a nerve?