Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Exactly what percentage of the population is "christian"?

1…5556586061…70

Comments

  • #1712
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    OK... care to give us any clues as to how you assess "its merits"? Because this does seem like a case of "survey of 1000 people with an error of +/-3% at the 95% confidence level" getting a degree of credence that you seemed in no hurry to extend to the various similar surveys on "what Catholics actually believe" cited earlier in the thread.

    It's worse than you think, he accepts the survey is valid when it makes a point that he thinks makes his case look good (the mass attendance result), yet he rejects the survey when it makes a point he realises makes his case look bad (the belief in god result).


  • #1713
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    *sob*

    >>>10. There, there.




    >>>15. [Run algorithm "look for something meaningful to say"]




    >>>20. [Algoritm result: Null]




    >>>25. Redo from line 10.


  • #1714
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    It's worse than you think, he accepts the survey is valid when it makes a point that he thinks makes his case look good (the mass attendance result), yet he rejects the survey when it makes a point he realises makes his case look bad (the belief in god result).

    I may or may not have thought that; I was trying as hard as possible not to say it.


  • #1715
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    TheChizler wrote: »
    In terms of comparing levels of religious adherence:

    Religion == Religion

    Denomination == Denomination

    To be fair, this isn't a cut-and-dried distinction. People will disagree as to whether Mormonism (for example) is a religion or a denomination. You could argue the toss regarding the different strands of Buddhism, which vary hugely on almost anything you care to name, arguably much more than does Christianity from Islam. "Religions" in this sense are families of denominations with a certain amount of commonality, but by the same token one can identify "families" of religions. (Abrahamic religions, Dharmic religions, etc.)


  • #1716
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    weisses wrote: »
    Problem with the census according to many here is the fact that Catholics self identify as being Catholic

    Limitation of the census results, and appropriate caveat as to the interpretation thereof, is that many people who evidently in no way pass any conceivable "Catholic duck test" tick the "Roman Catholic" box on the form.

    Hearing the difference yet?


  • Advertisement
  • #1717
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Quantify it then.

    Of all the various burden-of-proof-shifting stunts on this thread (and most of them yours, by some strange coincidence), this one surely takes the biscuit. (Oi, give it back, I wanted to have that with a cuppa! Though I also hear talk of talk...)


  • #1718
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    1.The surveys weren't carried out by the Iona Institute and the Bishop's Conference people, they were carried out by professional polling companies at their behest.

    Wow. That's quite a change in tune from when various polls you were less enamoured of the results of were under discussion, is it?


  • #1719
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Of all the various burden-of-proof-shifting stunts on this thread (and most of them yours, by some strange coincidence), this one surely takes the biscuit. (Oi, give it back, I wanted to have that with a cuppa! Though I also hear talk of talk...)

    If it's quantifiable then quantify. Surely this is straightforward? Meaningless sentences don't prove your point. You have provided precisely zero reasons to even consider your assertion.


  • #1720
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Wow. That's quite a change in tune from when various polls you were less enamoured of the results of were under discussion, is it?

    Oh look, you are wrong again I see. This is what I said over a week ago.

    First of all it would give your argument more credibility if you understood the source you are providing. It was commissioned by the Bishop's Conference; not carried out by them.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88445241&postcount=682


  • #1721
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Cabaal wrote: »

    To claim you are a catholic but claim you think the Vatican is wrong is kind of like claiming you are against racism and you think allowing immigrants into the uk is perfectly fine but you are a member of the BNP.

    It's not like that at all. The BNP stand for closing the borders and so on, it's members support them BECAUSE of this. The Catholic Church does not stand for child abuse and to conflate normal, everyday Catholics with child abusers is incredibly underhanded (and off-topic).

    It's akin to saying every Briton who pays a TV license supports child abuse because of the Saville cover up.

    The BNP want to ban the Burka
    http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/bnp-say-ban-burqa-now-video


  • Advertisement
  • #1722
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Oh look, you are wrong again I see. This is what I said over a week ago.



    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88445241&postcount=682

    Yes, an absolute model of consistency, I'm sure...
    you have missed the contradictions contained in this one.
    This is starting well.
    This more accurate number is 4.7% Why do you think anyone, including yourself, would take a less accurate reflection of the truth?

    Cherry-picking results entirely on the basis of personal preference for a less-applicable results, and spinning hard...
    Also, it doesn't give the margin of error, but I've worked it out at 3.1% which leaves us with potentially 1.6% or 150 people of Catholics surveyed in this poll not believing in God.
    And of course, complete misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of the statistics of sampling.
    Not exactly census shattering information is it?
    And in conclusion, arbitrary dismissal.

    Would you like me to repeat the process on one of your posts on other opinion surveys of my choosing, rather than yours?

    Alternatively, accept the fact that your earlier responses have been comprehensively rebutted, and either respond to the actual material responses, or say something else that's material to the topic on hand. "Loop back to some of my favourite hits" is not a tactic that's cutting any ice with anyone.


  • #1723
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    The Catholic Church does not stand for child abuse and to conflate normal, everyday Catholics with child abusers is incredibly underhanded (and off-topic).

    By your standards for inclusion, the RCC in fact only seems to "stand for" ticking the appropriate boxes on the census form every five years. Turning up at church, believing in the Marian doctrines, transubstantiation, the resurrection, heaven, hell, and indeed god, would be as the old Yes, Minister CoE would have it, "optional extras".


  • #1724
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If it's quantifiable then quantify. Surely this is straightforward? Meaningless sentences don't prove your point. You have provided precisely zero reasons to even consider your assertion.

    OK, let me translate this into the sort of impractical rhetorical imperatives you seem to favour. Give me a few tens of thousand euros, and I'll have a stab at some data gathering for a rough approximation. Don't cherry-pick the results when you get them, either.

    It's self-evidently and demonstrably a quantifiable number. It counts actual people in actual situations, how could that conceivably be "unquantifiable"? Are you quite sure you know what the word means? Here's a hint: it's not the same as "that number can be plucked readily off google".


  • #1725
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,314 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Limitation of the census results, and appropriate caveat as to the interpretation thereof, is that many people who evidently in no way pass any conceivable "Catholic duck test" tick the "Roman Catholic" box on the form.
    Two points here:

    First, this cuts both ways. People who identify as having no religion, or as being atheist, may equally fail the “nonreligious duck tests” that a third party might choose to apply.

    I don’t know of any Irish data on this, but a US survey produced some slightly surprising findings. Among American atheists and agnostics (that’s not including those who identify as having no religion; it’s people who positively identify as atheist or agnostic) 16% say that religion is either very important or somewhat important to them. (Comparable figure for the no-religionists: 42%; for those with a religious affiliation; 91%). 7% of atheists/agnostics say they are religious; 34% are spiritual but not religious; only 57% are neither. Startlingly, 24% of atheists/agnostics are either absolutely certain or fairly certain of the existence of a god or universal spirit. Another 14% have some degree of openness to the possibility while only 54% exclude it entirely. 6% of atheists/agnostics report that they pray daily(!) and a further 11% at least monthly. 75% of atheists/agnostics believe that religion plays an important role in helping the poor, 73% that it is important in building community bonds and 35% think that churches, etc, contribute a great deal, or some, to solving important social problems. 35% also agree that churches, etc, protect and strengthen morality in society.

    Of course, these findings wouldn’t necessary be replicated in a study of Irish atheists and agnostics. Still, there’s a striking contrast there between some of those findings and the model of atheism/agnosticism which predominates on this Board. You can’t help feeling that if a similar study were undertaken of the view and attitudes of Irish atheists/agnostics, there might be a couple of surprises lurking in there.

    Secondly, who gets to decide what an appropriate “Catholic duck test” is? Much is made on this board of the fact that large numbers of Catholics don’t go to regularly to mass, practice contraception, etc. But you can’t avoid the suspicion that these are being chosen as appropriate tests precisely because they produce the outcome desired by the person making the choice. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which has been cited before in this thread, has 2,865 paragraphs; you have to plough through to paragraph 2,370 before you get to the first mention of contraception (out of a total of two mentions). You have to get to paragraph 2,041 before you find any mention of a weekly mass attendance obligation. Nothing in the Catechism suggests that observing the mass attendance obligation, or the prohibition on contraception, is a litmus test for being a Catholic. So who, exactly, is picking these as the cardinal tests of true Catholicity, and why do they think they have the authority to do so? Atheists decreeing who is and is not a true Catholic makes about as much sense (and provides about as much amusement) as Catholics decreeing who is and is not a true atheist.

    There’s a fundamental error underlying the question which heads this thread, “exactly what percentage of the population is Christian?” The question presumes that Christian is an exactly-defined category, like weighing more than 70kg or having attained 21 years of age, but of course it isn’t. Even people who identify as Christian don’t agree on what the term means, but they generally do agree that it’s not a simple binary; you can be more Christian or less Christian, just as you can be more socialist or less socialist, more sceptical or less sceptical. There’s no “exact percentage” of Christians in the Irish population.

    What the census measures is not how many people are Christian, but how many people identify as Christian (as well as how many people identify as atheist or as agnostic, and how many people claim no religious identification). If you want to know what their identification means, there is no way of finding out except to ask them; you will find that it means different things to different self-identified Christians. (Same goes for atheists and agnostics, of course.) But if someone pontificating on a discussion board denounces their self-identification because it doesn’t conform to some “duck test” that he has decreed is to apply - well, that usually tells me more about the person doing the denouncing than it does about the people being denounced.


  • #1726
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Nobody is denouncing the self identification. Almost nobody anyway. This thread has gone on way too long and is going around in circles. The point was that self identities aren't always an accurate reflection of supposed attitudes born by the perception of those identities. That's been the point. Pere, your post was nice but most likely unnecessary. There's been strands of discussions going this way and that. This thread has consisted of people focusing on little quotes of those strands here and there, and the deviation is inevitable. The original intentions and understandings are lost. Not sure if this should remain open but will leave it another while.


  • #1727
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    What the census measures is not how many people are Christian, but how many people identify as Christian (as well as how many people identify as atheist or as agnostic, and how many people claim no religious identification). If you want to know what their identification means, there is no way of finding out except to ask them; you will find that it means different things to different self-identified Christians. (Same goes for atheists and agnostics, of course.) But if someone pontificating on a discussion board denounces their self-identification because it doesn’t conform to some “duck test” that he has decreed is to apply - well, that usually tells me more about the person doing the denouncing than it does about the people being denounced.
    What most people are saying is that because this is so, the census cannot be used to determine how most people in Ireland land on religious topics. For example, the census cannot be used to say that since 90% of people are christian, then Christianity should have a privileged position or should oblige the President to act or say something. (ie. that Ireland is a Christian country.)

    We also point out the danger of just leaving that figure as it is, since it is misused to support and justify things like Catholic control of the schools.

    The census figure is ultimately useless because the tautology of the definition of Christianity being what box you tick on the census provides absolutely no information.


  • #1728
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,314 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    King Mob wrote: »
    What most people are saying is that because this is so, the census cannot be used to determine how most people in Ireland land on religious topics. For example, the census cannot be used to say that since 90% of people are christian, then Christianity should have a privileged position or should oblige the President to act or say something. (ie. that Ireland is a Christian country.)
    Well, speaking as a republican I’d have to point out that, even if 90% - or 100% - of the people were Christian according to some very precise, accurate and authoritative definition, that still wouldn’t mean that Christianity should have some privileged position.
    King Mob wrote: »
    We also point out the danger of just leaving that figure as it is, since it is misused to support and justify things like Catholic control of the schools.

    The census figure is ultimately useless because the tautology of the definition of Christianity being what box you tick on the census provides absolutely no information.
    No. Again, you’re falling into the trap of trying to fit this into a simple binary. The world is not like that.

    The fact that the 90% Christian self-identification doesn’t have an exact meaning doesn’t mean that it has no meaning at all, or that it provides no information. It just means that you can’t rely on simplistic or stereotypical assumptions about what it means, and that you may have to do a bit of digging, and a bit of thinking, to find out exactly what its implications are in relation to a particular question. In relation to education, for example, we certainly can’t assume that 84% of the population want to send their children to a Catholic school and another 6% to some other kind of religious school. But, given the figures, we should not be surprised if we find that a large chunk of the population do want to send their children to a school with a religious identification or dimension. (And, lo, surveys suggest that this is in fact the case.) At the very least, the figure tells us we need to investigate that (unless we think that the kind of education that parents want for their children is not a relevant consideration when it comes to education policy).

    (Finally, it’s worth pointing out that if it were true that the Christian self-identification in the census results “provides absolutely no information”, then it would follow from the same reasoning the atheist and agnostic self-identifications in the census would also provide absolutely no information, and the sharp rise in those identifications noted in the last census would in fact be meaningless. But I don’t recall anybody on this board taking that view when the census results were published last year, and were discussed here.)

    The true position, I think, is that religious self-identification in the census means a bit less than is occasionally claimed by some, but a great deal more than is routinely asserted here.


  • #1729
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Jernal wrote: »
    I think you misunderstood the intention of my post. Throughout most of this thread Bb has been taking issue with posters stating some people who identify as Catholic aren't necessarily Catholic. Yet when it's suggested to him that a Muslim might not necessarily agree with something regarded as 'core' to Islam he reacts to extremes almost as if to say it's not possible for a person who believes they're muslim to be anything other than how BB imagines muslims to be. Which should sound familiar.

    You misunderstand and misrepresent me.

    I have already stated that to be considered Christian then there are some rudimentary beliefs that need to be universally accepted. What I didn't accept is that the existence of doubt, sinning, non/partial-adherence to rituals and rejection of your Church's stance on social issues exclude you from being Christian - as was the argument here.

    The same holds true for Islam. Believe that the Prophet was God's messenger on earth and that God wrote the Quran through Muhammed is at the absolute core for everyone who would consider themselve's Muslim.

    Therefore, it is highly hypocritical for anyone to consider a Muslim who acts contrary to the Quran as a Muslim when you want to make the point that religion is baaaaaaad! And at the same time judgingly apply an entirely different standard to your self-identified Christian neighbour next door because you've noticed they have barbeques on Sundays when ALL Christians should be at mass.


  • #1730
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    Can one be a Christian and Pro-Choice - yes.
    Can one be a Roman Catholic and Pro-Choice - not if one is following the rules of the organisation one claims to be a member of...

    Can you state this specific rule which says that if you are pro-abortion then you are no longer Catholic?


  • #1731
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    robindch wrote: »
    When quoting somebody, it really is best to provide a reference - the one you're missing is here and the source for the "Breivik is a christian" claim is herePossibly because exactly the same link quotes him saying that he'll be "praying to god" - a strange thing to do if, as you claim, he "didn't believe in god".

    http://web.archive.org/web/20111130172810/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8663762/Norway-killings-Breiviks-plan-for-the-day.html

    I've read Breivik's manifesto. You clearly haven't. If you did then you would realise that Breivik never prayed. Praying became part of his strategy in his terrorist attack as a form of meditation that he hoped would boost his focus and inner-strength to carry out his murderous goals.

    Breivik was a secularist and spiritually lay somewhere between atheist and agnostic who described himself Christian, but in a cultural not a spiritual sense. If you really want I can take quotes from his manifesto to prove this.

    I am more interested to find out the reason for your double-standards to be honest.

    Why do mass-murderers and terrorists get the right to self-identify their religious affiliation and regular, normal people don't when you are judging?


  • Advertisement
  • #1732
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    First, this cuts both ways. People who identify as having no religion, or as being atheist, may equally fail the “nonreligious duck tests” that a third party might choose to apply.
    That's true, though most especially if the "third party" is the RCC itself, using its "Mine for Life" (cue for an Ultravox song) criterion. I don't think many others will be "claiming" technically-baptised vocal atheists as being members of a religious denomination in deep denial, though. (OK, a few Young Earth Creationists who'll say that Philosophical Naturalism is the "fundamentalist religion" that everyone should be worried out, too.)
    Among American atheists and agnostics (that’s not including those who identify as having no religion; it’s people who positively identify as atheist or agnostic) 16% say that religion is either very important or somewhat important to them.
    In a sense, this isn't terribly surprising at all. If you're in a culture with a strong default towards religiosity, you have to feel fairly strongly about it to take an active stance against it. If your feelings about religion are best described as "utter indifference", but you can get a quiet life by "identifying" with the religion of your upbringing (or of your spouse, neighbours, etc), on the strict understanding that you don't have to actually do anything, believe anything, or let it affect your thinking or behaviour in any way, they what way would you go? (I know that I've been told that I'm way too interested in religion than is healthy for anyone, much less an atheist... witness me being on this thread, indeed.)
    Secondly, who gets to decide what an appropriate “Catholic duck test” is? Much is made on this board of the fact that large numbers of Catholics don’t go to regularly to mass, practice contraception, etc. But you can’t avoid the suspicion that these are being chosen as appropriate tests precisely because they produce the outcome desired by the person making the choice.

    Much is being made of the Credo, too. Isn't that a pretty low bar to pass? And a pretty essential one, too, to be a Catholic in any sense other than "Catholicism is the particular denomination one is an apostate from"? Anyhoo, that's the one I've been suggesting (since this reply is at least notionally to me). Slacking on other things might make one a "bad" Catholic, or a "weak" one, or just plain "lazy", but if you don't believe the creed, you're an insincere one. (And ditto any other Nicene denomination.) But given that I expressly said "any" duck test, I think that's pretty directly acknowledging the possible multiplicity of such. No-one gets to decide, at least not in any definitive sense; but we can make rough estimates as to what the answer would be for any given such "test".
    There’s a fundamental error underlying the question which heads this thread, “exactly what percentage of the population is Christian?”

    Though not as erroneous as using the census-derived putative answer to the question "how much should our technically-crypto-atheist president pay lip service to 'Christ'?". You're breaching to the choir, here.
    What the census measures is not how many people are Christian, but how many people identify as Christian (as well as how many people identify as atheist or as agnostic, and how many people claim no religious identification).

    Actually, it especially doesn't measure "atheist identification", especially given that the main atheist organisation publicly called for people not to put "atheist" (or anything else) as their "religion" (if they don't actually have one), but just to keep on reading past the writein" option, and tick "No religion". Note that neither "atheist" nor "agnostic" is an option on the form, so you'd have to specifically write it in as a "Other, write in your RELIGION" (their all-caps). I'd have to agree with AI that on a close textual reading, the people writing in "atheist", "agnostic", or who-know-what-other 20-character micro-essay not actually designating any religion, are making a category error. But some appreciable rate of people did so anyway, hence the CSO obediently reported this.
    If you want to know what their identification means, there is no way of finding out except to ask them; you will find that it means different things to different self-identified Christians. (Same goes for atheists and agnostics, of course.) But if someone pontificating on a discussion board denounces their self-identification because it doesn’t conform to some “duck test” that he has decreed is to apply - well, that usually tells me more about the person doing the denouncing than it does about the people being denounced.

    Did you perhaps miss the part of the thread where the people "pontificating" pointed out several professionally-conducted opinion surveys were said people were asked exactly such questions? It's not a massive stretch to infer from people expressly saying that they identify as Catholic but don't go to mass, don't believe in any of the things they're supposed to believe in, etc, that they're not self-identifying on the basis of actual practice or belief.


  • #1733
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Can you state this specific rule which says that if you are pro-abortion then you are no longer Catholic?

    CCC 2272, according to the TV appearances and archbish of Archbish Martin #2.

    (Obviously not "not a Catholic" in the "you're always a Catholic" sense, but in the "you're excommunicated, repent and crawl back for forgiveness, or else (literally) go to hell" sense, lest we have to slice that distinction all over again from the start.)


  • #1734
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, speaking as a republican I’d have to point out that, even if 90% - or 100% - of the people were Christian according to some very precise, accurate and authoritative definition, that still wouldn’t mean that Christianity should have some privileged position.
    And I agree. However BB believes otherwise.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The fact that the 90% Christian self-identification doesn’t have an exact meaning doesn’t mean that it has no meaning at all, or that it provides no information. It just means that you can’t rely on simplistic or stereotypical assumptions about what it means, and that you may have to do a bit of digging, and a bit of thinking, to find out exactly what its implications are in relation to a particular question.
    But if Christianity is to have a meaning other than a label that can be applied to anything at all, then it must have some defining characteristics.
    However others are arguing that there are no defining characteristics and that all of those people who self identify as christian are all christian even though there is no shared or defining beliefs between them. This means that they are arguing Christianity is meaningless.

    We are arguing that there are defining characteristics for religious and branches of those religions and that while people can self identify as anything they want and are free to do so, they can also be wrong.

    Again is someone who doesn't believe in God or Jesus a Christian? Is someone who rejects the Quran a Muslim? If so, what makes them so and what is the difference between a Christian and a Muslim besides the name they decide to call themselves?
    If there is no answer to this, the the labels are interchangeable, arbitrary and meaningless.

    I am saying there is an answer.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    In relation to education, for example, we certainly can’t assume that 84% of the population want to send their children to a Catholic school and another 6% to some other kind of religious school. But, given the figures, we should not be surprised if we find that a large chunk of the population do want to send their children to a school with a religious identification or dimension. (And, lo, surveys suggest that this is in fact the case.) At the very least, the figure tells us we need to investigate that (unless we think that the kind of education that parents want for their children is not a relevant consideration when it comes to education policy).
    Agreed. But the problem remains that the census can be misused (via incompetence or dishonesty) in place of those more detailed surveys.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    (Finally, it’s worth pointing out that if it were true that the Christian self-identification in the census results “provides absolutely no information”, then it would follow from the same reasoning the atheist and agnostic self-identifications in the census would also provide absolutely no information, and the sharp rise in those identifications noted in the last census would in fact be meaningless. But I don’t recall anybody on this board taking that view when the census results were published last year, and were discussed here.)
    You're misunderstanding me. While the figures of non religious people alone are indeed meaningless (as in you cannot make any other conclusions about the people who ticked that box). But if you are extending that to the rise and fall of numbers, then it becomes a different situation. The increase or decrease of the numbers who self identify is in itself information, and in the context of Ireland is noteworthy and useful.


  • #1735
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    CCC 2272, according to the TV appearances and archbish of Archbish Martin #2.

    (Obviously not "not a Catholic" in the "you're always a Catholic" sense, but in the "you're excommunicated, repent and crawl back for forgiveness, or else (literally) go to hell" sense, lest we have to slice that distinction all over again from the start.)

    Please reread my post and notice that I said "pro-abortion" not having or facilitating one. Not that it matters either way.

    Your reference doesn't exclude a Catholic from being Catholic in the Church's eyes. This is the ruling, with added emphasis.
    2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

    As should be clear to you you no more excluded for the Catholic Church for having an abortion anymore than you lose Irish citizenship when you are incarcerated by the state for criminal offenses.


  • #1736
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    And I agree. However BB believes otherwise.
    Nope, I believe it is natural for a President of an officially overwhelmingly Christian state to give a nod to Christian AT (and only at) CHRISTMAS. Like I believe it is natural to give a nod to Muslims at Ramadan (as he actually did), Jews at Purim and so on.
    King Mob wrote: »
    However others are arguing that there are no defining characteristics and that all of those people who self identify as christian are all christian even though there is no shared or defining beliefs between them.
    Who has argued that? Just because there might not be total uniformity does not mean that there is no shared or defining beliefs.
    King Mob wrote: »
    We are arguing that there are defining characteristics for religious and branches of those religions and that while people can self identify as anything they want and are free to do so, they can also be wrong.
    As can you be.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Again is someone who doesn't believe in God or Jesus a Christian? Is someone who rejects the Quran a Muslim?
    No and no. Who has said this? (other than Anders Breivik)?


  • #1737
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Nope, I believe it is natural for a President of an officially overwhelmingly Christian state to give a nod to Christian AT (and only at) CHRISTMAS. Like I believe it is natural to give a nod to Muslims at Ramadan (as he actually did), Jews at Purim and so on.
    Why would it be natural and therefore a given? Why is it a problem that he doesn't? Why is it an issue at all when a sizable chunk of "christians" probably celebrate Christmas in secular ways (ie, 90% of Ireland is not in church on Christmas morning.)
    And again, you call it a Christian state after vehemently denying you called it any such thing.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Who has argued that? Just because there might not be total uniformity does not mean that there is no shared or defining beliefs.
    Well we've been asking for these defining beliefs repeatedly, no one has provided them.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    No and no. Who has said this? (other than Anders Breivik)?
    So then since believing in God is a requirement for being christian, the people who did self identify as christian, but then also said they did not believe in god on the Bishop's survey are misidentifying themselves, correct?


  • #1738
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why would it be natural and therefore a given? Why is it a problem that he doesn't? Why is it an issue at all when a sizable chunk of "christians" probably celebrate Christmas in secular ways (ie, 90% of Ireland is not in church on Christmas morning.)
    And again, you call it a Christian state after vehemently denying you called it any such thing.
    Overwhelmingly Christian State as in the people as a whole have self-identified in a nationwide poll as being Christian, not the state itself.
    It is natural as it is a Christian Festival. Over time it has morphed into something that enjoyed by all, which is good, but it hasn't replaced Christmas as being a Christian Festival merely changed it. To not even mention this in a Christmas message is lying by omission.

    The 90% Christian stat is of secondary importance. It wouldn't make any difference if Christianity was tiny minority.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Well we've been asking for these defining beliefs repeatedly, no one has provided them.
    And what would be the point in idle speculation? There is diversity of belief and practices amongst Christians. To paraphrase Jesus "In my Father's home there are many mansions".
    King Mob wrote: »
    So then since believing in God is a requirement for being christian, the people who did self identify as christian, but then also said they did not believe in god on the Bishop's survey are misidentifying themselves, correct?
    I don't think there can be any grey area here. So yes, all few hundred of them have wrongly categorised themselves on that specific survey but not neccessarily the census.


  • #1739
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 28,314 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    alaimacerc wrote: »
    That's true, though most especially if the "third party" is the RCC itself, using its "Mine for Life" (cue for an Ultravox song) criterion. I don't think many others will be "claiming" technically-baptised vocal atheists as being members of a religious denomination in deep denial, though. (OK, a few Young Earth Creationists who'll say that Philosophical Naturalism is the "fundamentalist religion" that everyone should be worried out, too.)
    Well, not to pick nits or anything, but on the question of whether X is a Catholic or not, the Catholic church is not a “third party”. However we understand “catholicism”, it’s basically some kind of relationship between X and the Catholic church. Inevitably, this gives the views of X and the Catholic church on the question a degree of authority which does not attend the views of, say, alaimacerc or Peregrinus. You and I are the third parties, alaimacerc.
    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Much is being made of the Credo, too. Isn't that a pretty low bar to pass? And a pretty essential one, too, to be a Catholic in any sense other than "Catholicism is the particular denomination one is an apostate from"? Anyhoo, that's the one I've been suggesting (since this reply is at least notionally to me). Slacking on other things might make one a "bad" Catholic, or a "weak" one, or just plain "lazy", but if you don't believe the creed, you're an insincere one. (And ditto any other Nicene denomination.) But given that I expressly said "any" duck test, I think that's pretty directly acknowledging the possible multiplicity of such. No-one gets to decide, at least not in any definitive sense; but we can make rough estimates as to what the answer would be for any given such "test".
    Well, you have a point. But your approach to this is still to find some dimension or characteristic of Catholicism that people don’t share, and use it to argue that those people aren’t Catholics. It’s basically a polemical approach, with a particular conclusion in mind (which, I suppose, is to be expected in a forum devoted to the expression of atheist and agnostic positions). But it’s also basically a flawed approach; if you want to understand the substance of people’s Catholic (or other) self-identification, you don’t get very far by finding particular things that it doesn’t mean; what you should be asking yourself (or, better still, asking them) is what it does mean. Why does someone who doubts/denies/isn’t interested in (say) the virgin birth identify as a Catholic? What does his identification mean to him? To what extent does his claim to Catholic identity line up with the Catholic church’s understanding of what it is to be a Catholic? (Hint: doubting or denying the virgin birth does not, in Catholic ecclesiology mean that you cease to be a Catholic.) And employing phrases like “technically baptised” and “the particular denomination one is an apostate from” and “insincere” before you’ve undertaken any kind of exploration of what the substance of his identification is, as opposed to what it isn’t, does look a bit tendentious. No offence!

    It seems to me that those really interested in this question would need to be looking at qualitative research on the strength and substance of Catholic (or other) identification in Ireland. Is such research being done? Probably; there are lots of academics interested in the sociology of religion. But it’s not the kind of research that, in the polarised dialogue exemplified by the Iona Institute on the one hand and the denizens of A&A on the other, is likely to be highlighted by anyone.
    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Actually, it especially doesn't measure "atheist identification", especially given that the main atheist organisation publicly called for people not to put "atheist" (or anything else) as their "religion" (if they don't actually have one), but just to keep on reading past the writein" option, and tick "No religion". Note that neither "atheist" nor "agnostic" is an option on the form, so you'd have to specifically write it in as a "Other, write in your RELIGION" (their all-caps). I'd have to agree with AI that on a close textual reading, the people writing in "atheist", "agnostic", or who-know-what-other 20-character micro-essay not actually designating any religion, are making a category error. But some appreciable rate of people did so anyway, hence the CSO obediently reported this.
    Hmm. I’m of the view that, if someone either checks a box on the list of identifications provided, or writes an identification into the space provided, that’s self-identification, and it means something, and it probably means something significant, but if you want to know what that is you’ll have to ask them.

    alaimacerc wrote: »
    Did you perhaps miss the part of the thread where the people "pontificating" pointed out several professionally-conducted opinion surveys were said people were asked exactly such questions? It's not a massive stretch to infer from people expressly saying that they identify as Catholic but don't go to mass, don't believe in any of the things they're supposed to believe in, etc, that they're not self-identifying on the basis of actual practice or belief.
    No. It just means that they’re not self-identifying on the basis of the particular beliefs, or the particular practices, that they have been asked about. But they may be identifying on the basis of other beliefs, or other practices, or on the basis of things which are neither beliefs nor practices, and if you want to know what those things are you have to ask them. And this is an essential first step that has to be taken before you can, without attracting scorn and derision to yourself and foregoing any claim to be a person whose beliefs are evidence-based, dismiss the validity or authenticity of their identification.


  • #1740
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I've read Breivik's manifesto. You clearly haven't.
    He's probably the better for it, too. Have you really the whole thing? Or just the WND exercise in quotemining?
    If you did then you would realise that Breivik never prayed. Praying became part of his strategy in his terrorist attack as a form of meditation that he hoped would boost his focus and inner-strength to carry out his murderous goals.
    So by "never", you mean "repeatedly, as part of a self-conscious plan."
    Breivik was a secularist and spiritually lay somewhere between atheist and agnostic who described himself Christian, but in a cultural not a spiritual sense.
    That's quite fanciful. The closest thing to "doubt" I'm aware of him expressing is:
    Breivik wrote:
    If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other
    martyrs for the Church in the past.
    That's not "somewhere between atheist and agnostic". That's someplace in and around "an utter fanatic caveating less than perfect metaphysical certitude." His "manifesto" is positively littered with references to god (even accounting for the majority of them being complaints about Islam, and no few of the remainder being about the evils of society having rejected god).

    And what part is a violent programme of terror to establish a state that enforces a monocultural Christian Europe, to forcibly "reform" the Christian churches into a united, incredibly reactionary and regressive one in the "in this sign conquer" mould would be "secular"?
    Why do mass-murderers and terrorists get the right to self-identify their religious affiliation and regular, normal people don't when you are judging?

    I think there's some serious psychological (or at least, rhetorical) projection going on when you accuse other people of applying a "double standard". You're going an implausibly long way to claim these people don't pass a lubriciously stringent test for inclusion, while refusing to accept any at all for the "religious right to identify" types.

    If they hadn't been willing to kill and (supposedly) to die for their cause, they'd already have by far "distinguished" themselves from the "without practice and without belief" types. And if homicidal matyr-complexes weren't themselves "credentials" in the Abrahamic religions, the last couple of thousands years might have been a whole lot different. (Well, to an extent. I'm sure Dharmic and atheist bloodthirstiness could have picked up at least some of the burden...)


  • Advertisement
  • #1741
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Please reread my post and notice that I said "pro-abortion" not having or facilitating one.
    Uh, yes, of course I did. Martin #2 wasn't talking about the "having or facilitating", he was talking about political support. (In this instance concerning TDs, since it was a Dail vote, but the same logic would apply to all citizens if there were a referendum of the issue (as there eventually will be, as sure as eggs). Whether they'll be as heavy-handed come the time is an interesting question.)
    Your reference doesn't exclude a Catholic from being Catholic in the Church's eyes. This is the ruling, with added emphasis.
    Ah, so we really going all the way down that rabbit-hole. "How do you leave a church whose doctrine is that you can never actually leave. Welcome to the Hotel Collis Vaticanus..." Sprinkle an atheist today, get those census numbers up to 100%! This isn't detaining anyone other than yourself, though.
    As should be clear to you you no more excluded for the Catholic Church for having an abortion anymore than you lose Irish citizenship when you are incarcerated by the state for criminal offenses.
    That's a comparison without merit of logic or basis in fact. In fact, it's not a comparison at all, simply an assertion, with some wildly tangential colour tacked on.


Advertisement