Do Half of Americans Really Believe in Guardian Angels?

[Ivan Seeking]

Half of all Americans believe they are protected by guardian angels, one-fifth say they've heard God speak to them, one-quarter say they have witnessed miraculous healings, 16 percent say they've received one and 8 percent say they pray in tongues, according to a survey released Thursday by Baylor University. [continued]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/19/half-of-americans-believe-in-angels/

 

[Evo]

said Rodney Stark, co-director of Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion.

Mr. Stark dismissed the popularity of several recent books on atheism, saying they are mostly the products of “angry” people who are largely ignored by theists.

“The religious people don't care about the irreligious people,” Mr. Stark said, “but the irreligious are prickly. I think they're just angry.”

Oh, he's not prejudiced, is he?

I wonder where these people were from, if it was people in Houston with such a large percentage of Hispanics and smack dab in the heart of Born again Christians, the study would be very skewed and not be representative of the US.

 

[cristo]

“The religious people don't care about the irreligious people,” Mr. Stark said

Hold on a minute: whatever happened to "love thy neighbour"?

 

[Doc Al]

Hold on a minute: whatever happened to "love thy neighbour"?

That was never meant to apply to outsiders.

 

[B. Elliott]

Considering ~70% of the US population adheres to the Christian faith, I'm not one bit surprised 50% believe in angels. Christianity is a big thing in the US, but it appears to be slowly fading...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html

The shift away from Christianity and other organized religions:

"The proportion of the [American] population that can be classified as Christian has declined from 86% in 1990 to 77% in 2001." ARIS Study. 4

1% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion:
-- 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend has continued, then:
-- At the present time (2007-MAY), only 71% of American adults consider themselves Christians
-- The percentage will dip below 70% in 2008
-- By about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That was never meant to apply to outsiders.

There is a secret handshake.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The mythology of Angels
http://www.logoschristian.org/thrones/

Here is one bit from the link that I thought everyone might find particularly amusing.

Question: Are there female Angels?

Answer: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan.

 

[Moonbear]

Hold on a minute: whatever happened to "love thy neighbour"?

They don't want to move in next to you, you might lower their property values.

I didn't read the whole thing, but when people say they believe in guardian angels, do they really mean in the religious sense of angels? I mean, some people will refer to other people as their guardian angel...someone who looks out for them and at some point saved them from some major catastrophe in life. They mean it figuratively, not literally.

Though, I'm inclined toward Evo's interpretation that the study didn't use a representative sample set here. 8% praying or speaking in tongues sounds INCREDIBLY high. I've made acquaintances with many people from many walks of life, and only ONE has ever claimed to have spoken in tongues. Even his other religious group members (they were in a Christian organization in college) who were even more extreme in their outward religious attitudes did not claim to have spoken in tongues...I know they hadn't experienced it because they expressed disappointment that they had never had the experience even though they wanted to. Of course, my friend who spoke in tongues is the only one who ever actually studied languages, including ancient Aramaic, in college, so perhaps it's not quite so surprising he would be the one prone to suddenly speaking in Aramaic during a prayer session.

 

[OmCheeto]

50% of US believes in angels

All this tells me is that 50% believe correctly, and the other half don't.

Beliefs are nothing.

Angels have a purpose amongst a lot of people on this planet. Many people need hope, and for some, ethereal beings in their heads are all that keep them sane.

One day, my mom's angels told her to drink poison to cure her illness.

Yes, they cured her. She was dead within 7 days. My father took the same poison several years later. Dead that day.

But what does this have to do with people believing in angels?

Little.

Tell Tsu I still have 3 pounds of 7 flavors of rapidly dehydrating varieties of fudge waiting for her.

:!)

 

[Doc Al]

Question: Are there female Angels?

Answer: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Carl Sagan.

That is pretty funny!

 

[vincentm]

If there are angels, then they are some lazy bastards..

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I deleted a couple of posts that were insults to people of faith. While it is understandable that some people find religious or faith based beliefs logically offensive, please refrain from making personal insults.

 

[||spoon||]

I really do think that such statistics are amongst the most worrying, and just plain scariest that there are.

 

[mgb_phys]

According to the SciFi channel poll didn't 50% of Americans believe that aliens abducted people? I wonder how big the overlap is ?

 

[turbo]

Most rational people believe in some sort of causality. There are people who need to assign some sort of cause and effect to every single action, no matter how random, trivial, or important. This leads people to believe in things that they don't understand (thanks, Stevie Wonder) so they can make sense of a world that often does not make sense.

I have a couple of very religious cousins who most certainly believe in angels and in a "meddling" diety. Whenever something happens to someone, no matter how good or bad, they manage to couch it in the terms of their faith, and it's standard for them to say "it was God's will" or "God wanted that child with him" when a child dies from cancer or "her angel was guarding her" when a lady is in a crash that should have been fatal, but it only maimed her instead. Both of these guys are very right-wing, politically, and though they are uncomfortable with McCain, they will be voting for him because of Palin.

 

[mgb_phys]

Most rational people believe in some sort of causality

Except those in https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=62

her angel was guarding her" when a lady is in a crash that should have been fatal

I believe that as well, but in my case the angel was a guy at Subaru who designs anti-lock brakes and fortunately he DOES exist.

 

[turbo]

Except those in https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=62

OK, we believe in causality at some level. At some point (going down to the very small), we have to allow that non-determinancy (uncertainty) must be reckoned with. Certainly, though, if I turn toes-up it is probable that a doctor will have some reasonable causative explanation. If a cosmic ray flips or destroys a piece of my DNA and I end up with a rare cancer, maybe we have gotten into an area of quantum uncertainty that could have ended my life.

 

[||spoon||]

turbo-1:"most rational people believe in some form of casuality"

Casuality is fine, but I am fairly certain that believing a cause can include "angels" based on absolutely no evidence other than "well... It'd be nice if there were!" is, by definition, irrational in itself!

-Spoon

 

[||spoon||]

Sorry quote was sort not form ;)

 

[Redbelly98]

Reminds me of another poll I read about, might have been 10 to 12 years ago, that more than half of Americans polled did not believe in evolution.

(I forget the exact percentage, just remember that it was > 50%)

 

[Moonbear]

I believe that as well, but in my case the angel was a guy at Subaru who designs anti-lock brakes and fortunately he DOES exist.

That's what I meant in my earlier post. People can have quite different definitions of the phrase "guardian angel" and not all require religious belief.

 

[mgb_phys]

Of course I don't have any evidence that he isn't an angel - it's just that I'm picturing a middle aged Japanese engineer in blue overalls with a calculator rather than a cross legged Budha figure in front of Autocad.

 

[vociferous]

Reminds me of another poll I read about, might have been 10 to 12 years ago, that more than half of Americans polled did not believe in evolution.

(I forget the exact percentage, just remember that it was > 50%)

That is what I was thinking; I wonder if it is the same 50% that do not believe that men evolved from lower animals.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Of course, we are ignoring that some claims allegedly result from direct experience - almost all faith is based on someone's claim. And the survey itself references direct experiences as well.

For those who do: By what logic do we assume that the people who make these claims are delusional or liars?

 

[vociferous]

Of course, we are ignoring that some claims allegedly result from direct experience - almost all faith is based on someone's claim. And the survey itself references direct experiences as well.

For those who do: By what logic do we assume that the people who make these claims are delusional or liars?

Possibly neither, as we already discussed on another thread, there are people who believe they have seen bigfoot. They are not necessarily delusional. They may have had some kind of experience (either real or imagined) that they choose to explain as an "angel".

There are people with genuine mental illnesses, but the vast majority are probably perfectly sane. They simply do not have a scientific, skeptical worldview. Take UFO's. Most of these people are not making them up. They genuinely saw something (or believe that they did). But they may jump to conclusions based on speculation rather than take a realistic and objective look at their own experience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They simply do not have a scientific, skeptical worldview.

On what do you base this assumption?

 

[||spoon||]

Delusion:

1. false belief: a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric condition


2. mistaken notion: a false or mistaken belief or idea about something


(from encarta.msn.com)

That kind of speaks for itself i guess. But i don't believe people lie about their personal "experiences", since they actually believe it to be true.

As for what logic do we determine wether people are delusional? I would simply say by the LACK of logic by which they explain their beliefs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Delusion:

1. false belief: a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric condition

2. mistaken notion: a false or mistaken belief or idea about something

(from encarta.msn.com)

That kind of speaks for itself i guess. But i don't believe people lie about their personal "experiences", since they actually believe it to be true.

As for what logic do we determine wether people are delusional? I would simply say by the LACK of logic by which they explain their beliefs.

How does a claim of a personal experience suggest a lack of logic?

 

[||spoon||]

If the personal experience defies physical possibility i would say it is lacking in some logic. Is it not illogical to hold a dogmatic belief? I would have thought so...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is logical to accept theoretical models in place of direct observations?

 

[||spoon||]

Theoretical models are the result of a logical sequence of steps, beginning at some sort of self evident axioms (or testable theory).There is no "leap of faith" required to accept a theoretical model.

Dogmatic beliefs on the other hand do not follow any path of logic. There is always at least one (usually many) progression(s) which do not directly follow from what is known to be true.

 

[Nick666]

Angels ? Are they some sort of reptilians ?

 

[cristo]

It is logical to accept theoretical models in place of direct observations?

Observations should not depend upon the observer. Theoretical models of anything should make predictions that are falsifiable, regardless of who conducts the test.

 

[vociferous]

I think that a lot of these people, if they ask themselves, "could what I saw really only be explained by angels/aliens/Bigfoot/et cetera," in most of the cases, the answer is no, at least if they examine their own experiences objectively, and with an eye toward science and skepticism.

Like, say someone who is interested in Bigfoot is hiking in the northwest, and he sees a big, hulking upright primate figure about fifty meters away lumber off into the woods. The most likely and reasonable explanation is that he saw a person, but maybe he works it around in his mind, and becomes more and more convinced that it was a Sasquatch. I am not certain that he is delusional, but he certainly is probably not properly rationalizing his own experience. Human observational ability and human memory are quite fallible.

 

[Bad Monkey]

50% of people are of below average intelligence.


(Are we allowed to make such senseless statements?)

 

[Evo]

50% of people are of below average intelligence.


(Are we allowed to make such senseless statements?)

No, in this case you are making a statement of fact. The article is just an opinion poll.

 

[Bad Monkey]

In that case shall we start a debate on the correlation between (low) IQ and religion?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In that case shall we start a debate on the correlation between (low) IQ and religion?

If you have any related papers published in an appropriate academic journal, sure, but you will have to post a reference first, and then limit the discussion to the facts.

 

[George Jones]

50% of people are of below average intelligence.

This isn't how "average" works. For example, consider the average of 12, 12, 12, 12, 6, 6.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Observations should not depend upon the observer. Theoretical models of anything should make predictions that are falsifiable, regardless of who conducts the test.

How does this apply to claims of personal experience? If I witness a phenomenon, I am not bound to explain it simply by reporting it. My wife isn't bound to demand scientific proof before she believes my story.

 

[PhysicsDilettante]

No, in this case you are making a statement of fact. The article is just an opinion poll.

Looks like George just beat me on this thought, but would it not be a more factual statement that 50% of the population is below median intelligence?

Depending on how it is measured and how that measure is distributed in the population, more (or less) than 50% could be below the average.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are personal beliefs logically bound by the limits of science?

 

[Evo]

Looks like George just beat me on this thought, but would it not be a more factual statement that 50% of the population is below median intelligence?

Depending on how it is measured and how that measure is distributed in the population, more (or less) than 50% could be below the average.

The question wasn't asking if 50% of the population is below average intelligence, the question was if making such a statement without substantiation was allowable here. The answer is no. You could change his post to ask if it was ok to say that 50% of citrus fruit are lemons.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think that a lot of these people, if they ask themselves, "could what I saw really only be explained by angels/aliens/Bigfoot/et cetera," in most of the cases, the answer is no, at least if they examine their own experiences objectively, and with an eye toward science and skepticism.

Like, say someone who is interested in Bigfoot is hiking in the northwest, and he sees a big, hulking upright primate figure about fifty meters away lumber off into the woods. The most likely and reasonable explanation is that he saw a person, but maybe he works it around in his mind, and becomes more and more convinced that it was a Sasquatch. I am not certain that he is delusional, but he certainly is probably not properly rationalizing his own experience. Human observational ability and human memory are quite fallible.

My wife and I experienced what most people would call a haunting. The most significant events, which only happened a couple of times, were tactile. Now, I don't pretend to understand what it was that we experienced, but to deny it would be intellectually dishonest. I know for a fact what happened. I would have to be delusional to convince myself that it didn't happen.

Humans are falllible, but we also surivive by depending on our senses. They are generally quite reliable.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Humans are falllible, but we also surivive by depending on our senses. They are generally quite reliable.

I won't say that they are generally reliable, they are most of time wrong, but we rely on them nevertheless, cause these are our only means to investigate this world.

 

[||spoon||]

Are personal beliefs logically bound by the limits of science?

No, people can believe whatever they want. But whether that belief is rational or not is another matter.

Also, on another note, why are tgere specific guidelines on this forum with regards to religion? There are non with regards to political systems or sports teams...

Religon is simply an opinion about how the world works, why should this have special guidelines which supersede those (that don't exist) regarding peoples political opinions? Or any other philispphical opinions etc.

-spoon

 

[Moonbear]

I won't say that they are generally reliable, they are most of time wrong, but we rely on them nevertheless, cause these are our only means to investigate this world.

Most of the time? Usually, the senses work just fine. It's really just once in a while that something happens that "fools" the brain and can't be processed correctly, leading to an unreliable perception. An example would be optical illusions. Perhaps the reality is a drawing of static symbols, but the person perceives motion, or the reality is a 2-D sketch, but the person perceives 3 dimensions, or the drawing is nothing but a bunch of dots, but the person perceives a solid image. When someone sees something without context, another person with them could help provide the context, even if they are doing so inadvertently.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

It depends on how do you look at it, your perception of the light spectrum doesn't cover it in its entirety so you can't claim something according to your sight, that it's correct to all living beings, so how do you know that this sense is correct?

So as I said we can do nothing without the senses, but they are most of the time wrong, even when we think they are working properly, we can't trust them wholeheartedly, we need our reason to guide us through our senses, without reason we're just machines.

 

[Lisa!]

You mean 50% of American doesn't believe in my existence?

 

[cristo]

If you have any related papers published in an appropriate academic journal, sure, but you will have to post a reference first, and then limit the discussion to the facts.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4SD1KNR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=82c88cd709652a9a24d1a902d8106a8f is one such abstract, entitled 'Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations.'