Facebook   Twitter    e-mail newsletter    YouTube    RSS Feed    Android App    iPhone and iPad App     BlackBerry App    

  • Religious South Africans dropping in number - survey




    The number of people in South Africa who consider themselves religious has dropped by 19 percent, an international survey revealed on Friday.

    According to the latest polls released by the Win-Gallup International Religiosity and Atheism Index, which measures global self-perceptions on belief, religious South Africans dropped from 83 percent in 2005 to 64 percent in 2012.

    The survey, conducted during November 2011 and January 2012, was based on interviews with 52,000 men and women from 57 countries in five continents.

    South Africa was fifth behind Vietnam which dropped by 23 percent, Ireland, 22 percent, Switzerland, 21 percent, and France 21 percent.

    According to the survey, 28 percent of South Africans do not consider themselves religious, four percent were convinced atheists, and five percent did not respond to questions.

    The survey also indicated that globally the number of people claiming to be religious dropped by nine percent, while atheism rose by three percent.

    Ghana was the most religious country in the world with 96 percent, followed by Nigeria with 93 percent.

    China had 47 percent of citizens claiming to be atheists, followed by Japan with 31 percent and the Czech Republic with 30 percent.

    The survey further indicated that world-wide people in the bottom income groups were 17 percent more religious than those in the top income groups.

    The low income group accounted for 66 percent of religious people and the high income groups accounted for 49 percent.


    Source : Sapa
    Comments 143 Comments
    1. empirex's Avatar
      empirex -
      Quote Originally Posted by Techne View Post
      Well, I just disagree as there does not appear to be anything intrinsic to atheism to suggest it does. Any correlation between atheism and a scientific mindset would appear to be logically just merely accidental.


      This is not something only prevalent to theists. In fact this is pretty standard stuff in the scientific world. Atheists also have many and varied ideologies and in many cases you get atheists who object to research based on these ideologies. Again, not something that is intrinsic to theism or something atheists don't do.


      Perhaps some object to it for some reason. Again, this is not something that is universal among religious people and not really something you can claim to be on your side since it would be a bad generalization.


      Yeah, I don't see any reason why a theist cannot be as "absorbed in science" as an atheist. In fact, I think it is probably a bad generalization to argue that atheists are more "absorbed in science" than other people or make better scientists.

      Sure, given the rise of new atheism you get more people basically worshiping science and thus in that sense "more absorbed in science". It unfortunately also has the negative effect whereby this group basically appear to have an aversion for philosophy, which is not healthy as in many cases these many of these people appear to be totally unaware of their metaphysical biases they try to read into science. This can be dangerous and most definitely does not make a person a better scientist.
      This entire post is absolutely spot on.

      Additionally Techne, the sciences began, and were founded upon the works of theists. It was in their pursuit of understanding God's creation that the sciences began; even if some don't like to admit that fact.
    1. Nicodeamus's Avatar
      Nicodeamus -
      Quote Originally Posted by empirex View Post
      This entire post is absolutely spot on.

      Additionally Techne, the sciences began, and were founded upon the works of theists. It was in their pursuit of understanding God's creation that the sciences began; even if some don't like to admit that fact.
      and in their quest for finding knowledge they understood that God himself wasn't needed for creation anymore
    1. DJ...'s Avatar
      DJ... -
      Quote Originally Posted by empirex View Post
      Additionally Techne, the sciences began, and were founded upon the works of theists.
      That's exactly what Techne said...

      Quote Originally Posted by empirex View Post
      It was in their pursuit of understanding God's creation that the sciences began
      No, science had been around for ages before then. A standard way in which to pursue science was already in place in 1600BC and you are actually referring to the Arabs who began to create the scientific method in the middle ages to standardise their research on optics, not god. Yes, they were religious, but they were not researching god. And the scientific method has been evolving ever since, not once because of theistic contributions, but for scientific purposes.

      Don't pretend that the scientific method was introduced as a standardised measurement of god, or due to a standardised research into god...
    1. Techne's Avatar
      Techne -
      Quote Originally Posted by DJ... View Post
      Don't pretend that the scientific method was introduced as a standardised measurement of god, or due to a standardised research into god...
      From what I understand of the development is that the differentiation between primary and secondary causes and essentialism that contributed towards the development of the scientific method.

      Essentialism is basically the idea that things or substances act according to their nature or essence. For example, if something is by nature attracted towards something else then we can reliably study it and expect that it would continue to act according to this manner. The reason something obeys its own nature and even has a nature or essence would in turn be explained in terms of secondary causes e.g. a thing's formal, material, efficient and final cause. It is these causes that can be studied using the scientific method of testing. Or as the Scholastic aphorism goes:
      As a thing is so it acts: Action is the index of essence.
      I.e. we can begin to understand the nature of something by studying how it acts.

      These secondary causes, derived from Aristotle, had their existence grounded and were made intelligible through their primary cause (so it is argued anyway), an unmoved mover, something whose nature/essence is its act of existing, something with unlimited power and intellect etc.

      So, from this it was argued that the scientific method can reliably study secondary causes because it is rooted in something that acts according to its nature and existence which just is its existence, its essence, its power, its knowledge, its goodness etc.
    1. empirex's Avatar
      empirex -
      Quote Originally Posted by DJ... View Post
      No, science had been around for ages before then. A standard way in which to pursue science was already in place in 1600BC and you are actually referring to the Arabs who began to create the scientific method in the middle ages to standardise their research on optics, not god. Yes, they were religious, but they were not researching god. And the scientific method has been evolving ever since, not once because of theistic contributions, but for scientific purposes.
      They were theists DJ, theists involved in science!!

      Don't pretend that the scientific method was introduced as a standardised measurement of god
      wtf

      , or due to a standardised research into god...
      Look you've shifted the debate, research into God's creation was just a way of describing how theists attempt to understand the natural world around us, or God's creation; the overarching point being that -- theists have contributed far more to science than you are willing to admit.

      There's no room in the world for religion in the present or past is there, it's like you've erased it from your world. But hey if that's what you really choose to believe then f*** Copernicus, Mendel, Bacon, Galilei, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, Planck and the thousands of other contributors throughout early and recent history.

      Just two of those "religious scientists" that "never existed", or contributed anything:

      Teach us to study the works of Thy hands that we may subdue the earth to our use and strengthen the reason for Thy service; and so to receive Thy blessed Word, that we may believe on Him whom Thou hast sent to give us the knowledge of salvation and the remission of our sins.

      -- James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), father of electromagnetic theory

      Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.

      -- Max Planck, founder of Quantum Theory
    1. TheHiveMind's Avatar
      TheHiveMind -
      Impressive numbers. There is no coming back from that.
    1. OrbitalDawn's Avatar
      OrbitalDawn -
      Quote Originally Posted by empirex View Post
      "Planck quote"
      ...he [Planck] declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."
      Also, I always wonder how many of these scientific luminaries would still have been religious if they lived today. I won't speculate, but it's fun to ponder.
    1. empirex's Avatar
      empirex -
      Quote Originally Posted by OrbitalDawn View Post
      Also, I always wonder how many of these scientific luminaries would still have been religious if they lived today. I won't speculate, but it's fun to ponder.
      Speculation is great. If we head down that road though, no man can be judged by his life and we might as well ignore history.
      Darwin would be a good example. All that Darwin wrote, his requirements for evolution to be true, have failed to materialise, which would have seen him dismiss his theory of evolution. But that would be speculation I guess.
    1. Nicodeamus's Avatar
      Nicodeamus -
      Quote Originally Posted by empirex View Post
      Speculation is great. If we head down that road though, no man can be judged by his life and we might as well ignore history.
      Darwin would be a good example. All that Darwin wrote, his requirements for evolution to be true, have failed to materialise, which would have seen him dismiss his theory of evolution. But that would be speculation I guess.
      eh what?
    1. empirex's Avatar
      empirex -
      Quote Originally Posted by Nicodeamus View Post
      eh what?
      The fossil record.

      - Transitional species, and
      - the Cambrian Explosion.

      Darwin on the CE:
      "The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."

      -- Charles Darwin
    1. DrJohnZoidberg's Avatar
      DrJohnZoidberg -
      Quote Originally Posted by empirex View Post
      The fossil record.

      - Transitional species, and
      - the Cambrian Explosion.

      Darwin on the CE:
      Please. Let's not start another evolution debate here. There are plenty of other threads for that.
    1. DJ...'s Avatar
      DJ... -
      Quote Originally Posted by empirex View Post
      They were theists DJ, theists involved in science!!



      wtf



      Look you've shifted the debate, research into God's creation was just a way of describing how theists attempt to understand the natural world around us, or God's creation; the overarching point being that -- theists have contributed far more to science than you are willing to admit.

      There's no room in the world for religion in the present or past is there, it's like you've erased it from your world. But hey if that's what you really choose to believe then f*** Copernicus, Mendel, Bacon, Galilei, Pascal, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin, Planck and the thousands of other contributors throughout early and recent history.

      Just two of those "religious scientists" that "never existed", or contributed anything:
      Well of course theists were involved in the pursuit of science. You made out as if their theistic beliefs were responsible for the scientific method. In fact you claimed that the scientific method came about by trying to understand god and his creations. And what am I not prepared to admit? I've not once denied anything in the face of evidence. Stop trying to put words in other people's mouths here - anyone who claims theists have not been involved in scientific endeavours is just being stupid. I still cannot fathom wtf your point is though - it seems like a veiled insult at atheists for them not accepting theistic scientific endeavours. Which is just plain stupid...
    1. DJ...'s Avatar
      DJ... -
      Quote Originally Posted by empirex View Post
      Speculation is great. If we head down that road though, no man can be judged by his life and we might as well ignore history.
      Darwin would be a good example. All that Darwin wrote, his requirements for evolution to be true, have failed to materialise, which would have seen him dismiss his theory of evolution. But that would be speculation I guess.
      Now you're just making schit up again. You really and truly are. If you're going to post this sort of drivel then at least back it up with some sound reasoning and evidence...
    1. unskinnybob's Avatar
      unskinnybob -
      Quote Originally Posted by DJ... View Post
      Well of course theists were involved in the pursuit of science. You made out as if their theistic beliefs were responsible for the scientific method. In fact you claimed that the scientific method came about by trying to understand god and his creations. And what am I not prepared to admit? I've not once denied anything in the face of evidence. Stop trying to put words in other people's mouths here - anyone who claims theists have not been involved in scientific endeavours is just being stupid. I still cannot fathom wtf your point is though - it seems like a veiled insult at atheists for them not accepting theistic scientific endeavours. Which is just plain stupid...
      It may also be worth noting that during some of the periods of great scientific advancement the church dealt harshly with non-believers.
    1. empirex's Avatar
      empirex -
      Quote Originally Posted by DJ... View Post
      Now you're just making schit up again. You really and truly are. If you're going to post this sort of drivel then at least back it up with some sound reasoning and evidence...
      Oi!! Read the whole thread numb nuts!
    1. DJ...'s Avatar
      DJ... -
      Quote Originally Posted by empirex View Post
      Oi!! Read the whole thread numb nuts!
      Point me in the right direction, dipschit.

      We can all throw insults around. Let's keep it civil, numbskull...
    1. empirex's Avatar
      empirex -
      Quote Originally Posted by DJ... View Post
      Now you're just making schit up again. You really and truly are. If you're going to post this sort of drivel then at least back it up with some sound reasoning and evidence...
      Sheesh DJ, read the entire thread why don't you nucklehead, specifically post 91.
      But then Dr John is probably right, let's leave this for another thread.
    1. empirex's Avatar
      empirex -
      Quote Originally Posted by DJ... View Post
      Point me in the right direction, dipschit.

      We can all throw insults around. Let's keep it civil, numbskull...
      6 posts up...

      Would love to keep it civil, kinda hard when guys like you respond with emotional outbursts like this though:

      Now you're just making schit up again. You really and truly are. If you're going to post this sort of drivel then at least back it up with some sound reasoning and evidence...
    1. DJ...'s Avatar
      DJ... -
      Oh ffs, most people with half a brain simply looked at that for what it is - a complete and utter lack of understanding of the subject. We've been through this with you time and time again as well, but as usual, your PrisonPlanet-abused mind only sees what it wants to...
    1. empirex's Avatar
      empirex -
      Quote Originally Posted by DJ... View Post
      Oh ffs, most people with half a brain simply looked at that for what it is - a complete and utter lack of understanding of the subject. We've been through this with you time and time again as well, but as usual, your PrisonPlanet-abused mind only sees what it wants to...
      DJ summed up:

      I'm so friggen smart, you don't know anything, so just shut up and listen, insult, blah blah blah blah insult..

      repeat ad nauseam