Americans three times more likely to believe in “Virgin Birth” than in Evolution.

Posted by Les on Saturday, August 16, 2003 at 09:02 PM. Read 618 times. Tags:
{name} pic

No wonder I get so many creationist wackos visiting my site.

According to this New York Times article (free registration required) Americans are three times more likely to believe that the Biblical story of the virgin birth of Jesus is true (83%) than are likely to believe that Evolution is true (28%). The article also states that a majority of Americans (58%) also feel that a belief in God is necessary to be moral. The article goes on to say that this is particularly interesting given that many Biblical scholars will admit that the evidence of a virgin birth is shaky at best.

The result is a gulf not only between America and the rest of the industrialized world, but a growing split at home as well. One of the most poisonous divides is the one between intellectual and religious America.

Some liberals wear T-shirts declaring, “So Many Right-Wing Christians . . . So Few Lions.” On the other side, there are attitudes like those on a Web site, dutyisours.com/gwbush.htm, explaining the 2000 election this way:

“God defeated armies of Philistines and others with confusion. Dimpled and hanging chads may also be because of God’s intervention on those who were voting incorrectly. Why is GW Bush our president? It was God’s choice.”

The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America’s emphasis on faith because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth, and for Mary’s assumption into Heaven (which was proclaimed as Catholic dogma only in 1950), as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith. As the Catholic theologian Hans Kng puts it in “On Being a Christian,” the Virgin Birth is a “collection of largely uncertain, mutually contradictory, strongly legendary” narratives, an echo of virgin birth myths that were widespread in many parts of the ancient world.

Jaroslav Pelikan, the great Yale historian and theologian, says in his book “Mary Through the Centuries” that the earliest references to Mary (like Mark’s gospel, the first to be written, or Paul’s letter to the Galatians) don’t mention anything unusual about the conception of Jesus. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke do say Mary was a virgin, but internal evidence suggests that that part of Luke, in particular, may have been added later by someone else (it is written, for example, in a different kind of Greek than the rest of that gospel).

Yet despite the lack of scientific or historical evidence, and despite the doubts of Biblical scholars, America is so pious that not only do 91 percent of Christians say they believe in the Virgin Birth, but so do an astonishing 47 percent of U.S. non-Christians.

Which just goes to show you how popular it’s become to be credulous about everything you’re told these days.

Comments:

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Spocko United States Posted on 11/01/2004 at 10:57 PM

Spocko pic

Now that’s entertainment!

Les United States Posted on 11/01/2004 at 11:13 PM

Les pic

As Mick pointed out I haven’t always been an atheist and it’s ground we’ve covered may times before. You don’t have to read every entry before commenting, but it would be nice if you took the time to check out some of them, particularly anything under the heading “about me,” before making assumptions about how I was brought up. As Chazzy points out it does get a little tiring repeating the same thing every time someone new comes by my site. Having said that, let’s see what we have to work with:

Would you WANT there to be a God?  Maybe it was just chance that you were born into a home that didn’t lead you to a God.  You could have just as easily been born into a home that taught that there is a God.  After being brought up to believe there’s a God, it still took me until I was 30 to have contact with Him that proved to me His existence.

I’m not sure I understand your opening question. Would I “want” there to be a God? What does my desire have to do with the issue at all? I might “want” Santa Claus to be real or the Easter Bunny, but my desire plays no role in whether or not they actually do exist.

I’ve covered the history of my upbringing elsewhere on the site so I won’t bother to repeat it here beyond saying that at one time I was a believer and a member of a Baptist church and I have read the Bible many times over in the past and still study it on occasion now in the present.

Nice dodge of the questions I presented to you, though. Is there some reason you won’t answer them?

I love a good debate!  Especially when I know what I’m talking about. 

You’ve yet to give us any reason to hold confidence in the idea that you know what you’re talking about. You’ve done nothing but dodge the questions presented to you so far. Not much of a debate, really.

Well, if you weren’t always an athiest, I probably don’t have anything to tell you that you haven’t already heard.

This is likely to be very true.

What continues to be a miracle to me, day after day, is that I was raised in such a legalistic home that I came to the conclusion that I could never please God enough to have any kind of relationship with Him.  That didn’t keep me from trying, over and over, to find Him.  I came to the conclusion that great things like ever feeling God’s presence was for people who certainly were better than me.  But I am so hardheaded that I find it very hard to give up on something that I really want, so I didn’t.  And what all happened to bring the impossible to pass is a very dramatic story that I don’t bother to tell people because it’s unbelievable - but my most prized memory. I’m glad now that I had to wait so long, because now I don’t take this rare relationship for granted.  It’s an ever-evolving miracle in my life every day.  It never gets old and I’ve never been disappointed.  You’re probably not open-minded enough to want to hear it, so I won’t push it on you.

What is a “legalistic” home? That’s a new term for me. As for your story, everyone has one. If you’re not going to share it then why even mention it in the first place? I’m very open minded, but that’s not the same thing as saying that I’ll buy into whatever you’re selling. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t count for much other than perhaps entertainment, but if you’re happy with it then more power to you.

I just live knowing I am one of the most fortunate women who ever lived.  I’ve thought many times that I should put a sticker on my back bumper that says, NO FEAR.  But I hate things stuck on cars, so I don’t.  I’m certainly not afraid to be laughed at, or called an odd ball, I just don’t feel the need to mess up my car - even if it is an old Lexus.  Oh, I use to be tempted to tell this story, but not many people want to do what you have to do to reap the benefits.  If only they knew WHAT the benefits were, they’d do anything to get them.  I’m so glad I’m hardheaded.  I wouldn’t take any amount of money for what I have found.  I wake up many mornings wanting to laugh out loud, and do sometimes.  But, like I said, most people don’t want to hear, so I will keep my precious gift to myself most of the time.  I would say, God Bless, but He won’t if you don’t want Him to.

I dunno, I got a pretty good giggle out of what little you’ve shared so far. Hey, if it makes you happy and you sleep better at night then I wouldn’t have it any other way. As for wanting God to bless me, you may as well have substituted “The Red Underwear Fairy” for “God” for all the sense that statement makes to someone who doesn’t believe either one of those things exist.

Or do you walk around wanting the Red Underwear Fairy to bless you as well? Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

zilch Austria Posted on 11/02/2004 at 04:00 AM

zilch pic

At the risk- no, the certainty- of repeating ideas ably defended here by Les and others, here’s my slant.

There are many paths to God, but science and logic will not take you there.  To claim that the universe logically requires a Creator, and then to grant Him diplomatic immunity from that same logic (who created the Creator?) is to posit a priori that which is to be proven.

The same kind of circular logic gave us the ontological argument for the existence of God (St. Anselm, 1033-1109, Proslogium), briefly:  “God is, by definition, that of which greater cannot be conceived.  The fool hath said in his heart, God does not exist.  But the fool’s God, lacking existence, is not as great as a God who does exist.  Therefore, the true God cannot be conceived not to exist, and must therefore exist.” This boils down to: if God exists, then he must exist.  I can plead for the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorns the same way, of whom Logic says they are Invisible (because we can’t see them), and whose Pinkness must be taken on Faith.

The argument from design is just as forlorn, as Richard Dawkins (among others) has pointed out.  If organized complexity needs an explanation, then invoking a necessarily organized and complex God solves nothing.

One way to God many take is “credo consolans”, I believe because it consoles.  Even staunch materialists such as Isaac Asimov go this path.  And George Santayana, whose wise saying “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it” is especially apposite today, was a Catholic atheist.  His belief was summed up as “There is no God, and Mary is His Mother”.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main