[pbleighton]

A ludicrous statement in another thread inspired this one.

It's a thread, not a poll, because your answer to

"What percentage of people in your country are Christian"

depends on
1. Your country, and
2. Your definition of Christian

For example, in the U.S., polls consistently show that over 70%
of the public consider themselves Christian.

You could accept self-identification, or you could use one or
more additional criteria, such as:
1. Belief in Heaven and Hell
2. Belief that Jesus is the Son of God, who physically appeared
on the earth, and whose teachings lead the way to Heaven
3. Belief that every word of the New Testament is true
4. Belief that abortion should be illegal
5. Regular church attendance
6. Regular prayer
7. etc.

If you would, please state your country and your definition
of Christian, and whether you consider yourself a Christian,
or if not, what are you. For me:

I am from the U.S.
I think about 40% of U.S. citizens meet my definition of
being a Christian.
I consider 1, 2, and either 5 or 6 (or both) to be necessary
to be a Christian.
I am an atheist.

Peter

[mike777]

Well it only takes faith of the size of a Mustard seed.

[Impact]

According to our (Oz) 2001 census, nearly 68% identified themselves as Christian (but that may not mean practising as opposed to registered at birth) while 15.5% expressly averred "NO religion" (atheist) and 11.7% declined to state or respond. From that it can be seen that the remaining religions (Buddhism at 1.9%, Islam at 1.5%, Hindu at 0.5%, Judaism at 0.4% not forgetting marginalsied groups like Jeddi knights !!) are statistically insignificant.

Nonetheless, the percentage of practising (ie regular churchgoers of whatever persuasion) is apparently only around 15% (ie less than one in 4 of those who identified themselves as Christian).

My heritage is one thing but by belief I qualify as atheist - but not aggressive in my belief, and neither do I proselytise.

However I am always fascinated by the "reasoning" that enables intelligent people to profess faith in a benevolent creator, when to my logic all evidence indicates the contrary.

NB the denial of "God- the creator of the universe" does not deny the putative existence of superior beings to humans or aliens or a host of other possibilities.

If you can overcome the initial "leap of faith" the selection of ritual (however silly, traditional, elaborate or otherwise) is basically accessorising the vehicle to taste (yet another unpopular view!).

In Oz the abortion/stem cell research debate is not as vigorous as the US, despite or perhaps because abortion is both legal and available in many cases under Medicare (Government Health care for all for the vast majority of costs)!

As an outsider, certainly the list of requirements to fulfil Christianity from my perspective requires only 2:

belief in God as creator of the universe and Jesus Christ as his son...

but then I am the outsider.

[helene_t]

There could probably be many co-existing definitions for many purposes.

In Denmark, polls show that some 60% believe in some kind of god while 20% believe in the imortality of the soul. Virtually nobody believes in Hell and Satan. Virtually nobody ever go to church except for funerals and possibly weddings/baptism. I have no idea how many people consider themselves "Christians" and what that would mean. Very few people meet any of Peter's criteria (with the possible exception of belief in Heaven) but maintainance of some popular ceremonies like singing Christmas Carrols and the belief in some vague concept of "God" may be sufficient for some. The word "christian" is rarely used. Many people consider themelves religious/spiritual but that can be anything from a panteistic belief in the beauty of nature and the meaning of life to astrology and reincarnation. Most people have lukewarm feelings towards religion.

In the Netherlands, the situation is different. Due to traditionally strong and oppresive protestant churches, many people are strongly opposed to religion. At the same time, church attendance is quite high in parts of the country.

My impression of the U.S. (correct me if I'm wrong) is that there is a strong connection between spirituality and religious institutions, i.e. people with certain spiritual beliefs tend to attend certain churches and belong to certain religious networks. This is less the case in Europe.

One sociological explanation for the strong position of churches in the U.S. is the lack of social security and the geographical dispertion of families. The church gives you (perceived) security. In most of Europe, churches are non-important so there's nothing that keeps different people's spiritual belief in clusters. Each individual creates his own "religion".

I may be over-generalizing somewhat, my experience is mainly from Netherlands and Denmark.

As for myself:
- I don't care what the word "Christian" means. Semantics, seschmantics. I would prefer divisive labels like race, religion and ethnicity to be abandoned.
- I don't beleive in anything. If a had to believe in something, it would be scepticism. And the law of total tricks, of course.

[mike777]

1) I have heard that more Muslims go to mosque than christians to church in France? True?
2) I assume this is true in parts of eastern Europe, or parts of Turkey that are in Europe?
3) Are there a million muslims in the Netherlands, how many go to mosque?
4) Perhaps this will become true in other European countries over the next 40 years and the countries will become more religious than today?

[gwnn]

I'm from Romania..

More than 90% of all Romanians consider themselves Christians, or at least declared themselves so at the latest census (I think most atheists wrote themselves in as Orthodox). Of course, the ratio of people who regularly go to church is sensibly less than 90%. The ratio of people who strive to "love their neighbor as themselves" are much, much less. Which makes me sad... Christianity gets lots of bad advertisment all of the time by people who believe with their mouths but not with their hands etc. Which was a clumsy metaphor, but u get it.

For me, a Christian is who:

-believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for the sins of all humanity
-strives to fulfill the two Greatest Commandments
-other details which are far, far less important

And yea I'm a Christian (my parents and big brother are not Christian). I'm not sure if all the details are relevant here. You can ask if something interests you. I'm NOT fond of George Bush, if this question/thread was in any way correlated with the old man.

BTW, I am an ethnic Hungarian and our group here (about 1.4M) is less religious than the Romanian majority. This is analogous to Hungary where church frequency is less than 30% I think. This "losing my religion" thingie happened during Communism, where much of the national identity and pride were swept away. At least, so did I hear.

As for Muslims, there are very very few of them here and not much more in Hungary. There are a few mosques cherished for their historic value (for example in Pécs, or in Eger, but that's a minaret [is that the word?]), but very few followers. I know there are many Muslims a little more south, though, in the Balkans.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 8 2007, 03:41 PM, said:

1) I have heard that more Muslims go to mosque than christians to church in France? True?
2) I assume this is true in parts of eastern Europe, or parts of Turkey that are in Europe?
3) Are there a million muslims in the Netherlands, how many go to mosque?
4) Perhaps this will become true in other European countries over the next 40 years and the countries will become more religious than today?

Few quick comments here:

1. Its probably appropriate to diferreniate between two broad categories of Europe muslims. First, there are large number of muslims who have long standing ties to their local communities and geographies. By and large, these individuals are confined to territories that were once controlled by either the Ottoman Empire or the Golden Horde. Representative territories would include Turkey, pockets in the Balkans, and some portions of the Ukraine. More recently, there have been sizeable numbers of muslims who have emmigrated to various locations in Western Europe. By and large, this influx has been an outgrowth of European colonial activities from the last century. Accordingly, you see large numbers of Pakistani in Britain, Algerians and Morroccans in France, Morroccans in Spain, and Turks in German. (Note: Turkey was never a German colonony, however, Germany and the Ottoman Empire had extremely close trade ties). You also see small number of political refugees who have been granted asylum in Scandinavia. The issues confronting these groups are quite different.

2. The last 50 odd years have seen some dramatic changes with respect to religious identification in Europe. The Roman Catholic Church is imploding. The mainline Protestant Churches like the Lutherans and the Anglicans seem to be much less important. There are some religious groups that are growing rapidly. The Greek Othordox Church is experiencing a real resurgence in Russia. Islam is growing very rapidly, however, this is predominantly a reflection of the fact that the absolute numbers are so, low. In a similar fashion, theres a real explosion in the percentage of Evangelical Protestants (Baptists, Pentacostals, and the like) Like Islam, the Evangelical movement largely targets new immigrants to Europe and the growth is (largely) a function of the relatively small size of the base.

3. If I had to build a hypothesis based on experiences in Europe I'd argue that religious affiliation is (largely) a function of three distinct drivers

(A) Income level: Poor countries are more religious. As countries develop economically, their populations become more secular. Individuals may claim religious affiliations (most everyone in Spain identifies as a Catholic), however, their don't actively practice their religion

( Education level: See above

© Opposition: Religion thrives on persecution. Nothing makes a zealot happier than a tangible enemy that they can focus on. The Communist states had an extremely antagonistic relationship with organized religion. The Catholic Church was instrumental in opposing the Communist party in Poland. The same holds true for the Greek Othordox church in Russia. To some extent, I believe that the Communists and the Catholics sustained one another. The fall of Communism in Poland might seem like a victory for the Roman Catholic Church. Personally, I suspect the main impact will be to release market forces that will erode one of Catholicism's last strongholds in Europe.

I think that the same forces that secularized the Protestants and the Catholics in Europe will also work on the muslims and the Evangelicals. However, to some extent this will depend on the extent to which the Europeans are able to assimilate immigrants into their societies.

[pbleighton]

"I'm NOT fond of George Bush, if this question/thread was in any way correlated with the old man."

It's not.

Peter

[luke warm]

Quote

If you would, please state your country and your definition
of Christian, and whether you consider yourself a Christian,
or if not, what are you.

usa
i am a christian, and i believe this was answered very well by gwnn... i'll add the following, and will be glad to answer any questions to the best of my ability:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he was sent here by God, because of God's great love for us, to become a sacrifice for our sins...
on the cross, Jesus paid the debt sin against God demands, which is death... in theological terms, there was a transference at that moment... the debt was "paid in full" at that time...
to be a christian, imo, one must believe that Jesus is the Son, that the reason he was sent is as stated, that he died for us, and that he arose (showing God's acceptance of his sacrifice, much as the earlier jewish sacrifice on the day of atonement was shown to be accepted by virtue of the high priest exiting the holy of holies alive)...
without the shedding of blood there was no atonement, without the resurrection there was no acceptance... without belief there is no salvation

[hrothgar]

>If you would, please state your country and your definition
>of Christian, and whether you consider yourself a Christian,
>or if not, what are you. For me:

I am an American

I do not consider myself a Christian, though I was confirmed in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (I went through this to make mother and my grandparents happy). From my perspective, the definition of Christianity can best be summarized as accepting the Nicene Creed.

http://www.creeds.ne...ient/nicene.htm

My own belief structure lies somewhere between atheism and agnosticism. I don't think that humanity has enough information to say with absolute certainty whether there is any truth to any of the thousands of different religions that flourish on this planet. However, if I had to put money on it, I'd bet that the atheists are right.

I explictly reject the hypothesis that secular humanism is an atheistic relegion. The same holds true for "science" and the "scientific method".

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2007, 11:33 AM, said:

I explictly reject the hypothesis that secular humanism is an atheistic relegion.

from wiki:

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making.

i take that to mean that secular humanists are making a claim of knowledge ("specifically rejects")... do they have warrant for that belief? yes, i think they do... do those who hold that belief have rationally functioning brains? yes, for the most part... so we have the parts necessary (in my opinion and that of others) for a knowledge claim to be made:
a warranted belief from a rational mind that is able to function properly (i.e. no brain damage etc)

but notice that "belief" is an integral part of the definition and description of secular humanism... as such, i'd say it falls within the realm of religion, one that denies the existence of God, i.e. an atheistic religion

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Feb 8 2007, 07:42 PM, said:

from wiki:

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making.

Perhaps you should read the whole wikipedia article:

There is a quite large section entitled "Is secular humanism a religion?". In particular the section explaining how the US legal system has rejected arguments that secular humanism is a relgion seems appropriate to mention.

Quoting from this:

Because it adopts positions about the place of God and religion in well-ordered society, some Christians maintain that secular humanism is itself a religion. Humanists say that secular humanism is not a religion, while acknowledging that some varieties of humanism may be religious in some senses of the word. Disputes around this subject are largely semantic.

There is a continuum of humanist philosophies which may be divided into several categories:

* A. Nontheistic non-religious humanism
* B. Nontheistic religious humanism
* C. Theistic religious humanism

Adherents of the first category of humanism, A, emphatically do not regard their variety of humanism as a religion. Adherents of the last two categories of humanism, B and C, regard their variety of humanism as a religion.

Confusion arises because proponents and opponents of humanism tend to define the term secular humanism differently.

* Among proponents of humanism, secular humanism refers to category A. The current article relates primarily to secular humanism as defined in this fashion.

* Among Christians who oppose humanism, secular humanism is used to refer to categories A and B, or even A, B and C.

Fundamentalists use the descriptions of those in category B of their humanism as a religion to "prove" that "Secular Humanism is a religion." This angers those who actually call themselves secular humanists, those in category A, because their variety of humanism is "by definition not religious."

So, the question of whether secular humanism is or is not a religion devolves into a question of semantics, and a question of whether people are to be trusted to know whether their own beliefs are religious in nature:

* If one uses self-reporting of adherents to determine which beliefs are "religious" then:

o Using the definition of those who self-identify as secular humanists, then secular humanism is emphatically not a religion. To these individuals, the word "secular" means "not religious" and is an assertion of their desire to be not associated with religion.

o Using the fundamentalists' definition of secular humanism, the question of whether secular humanism is a religion or not is not coherent: secular humanism denotes a range of world views, some of which are religious and some of which are not.

* If one does not use self-reporting of adherents to determine which beliefs are "religious" then:

o What definition of "religion" one adheres to will determine whether some varieties of nontheistic humanism should be regarded as religious or not.

Related legal questions are considered in a subsequent section.

Religious groups resentful of the separation of church and state attach great significance to the granting of legal protections to non-theistic organizations as religions. They argue that secular humanism—and by association secularism—has been granted religious status, that secularism in government and in the schools constitutes state favoritism towards a particular religion, and a double standard is used in granting religious protections to these groups while allowing the teaching of ideas such as evolution which are consistent with secularism.[22]

U.S. courts have consistently rejected this interpretation. Often the discussion is not clearly framed. However, the rationale for believing there is no contradiction appears to include the following:

* Beliefs involved are about more than secularism — Religious status has been granted to various non-theistic humanist organizations. Such organizations typically favor various aspects of secularism. However, humanism embraces a variety of ideas which are not part of secularism, for example, affirming human dignity. Even if a particular brand of humanism were to be regarded as a religion, that would not necessarily make particular positions, such as secularism, religious, as religious status could be based on other considerations.
* Beliefs of a religious group can be non-religious — Even if a group did assert secularism in isolation to be its religion (no instances of this are known), this would not mean that secularism is in general a religious idea. ("Just because people count something in what they say is their religion does not make it inherently religious. If some people start worshipping chairs chairs shouldn't be kept out of school."[23])
* Court rulings haven't been about beliefs — Court rulings on particular non-theistic groups being religious have never ruled that the ideas of these groups were religious per se. Instead, rulings have generally said the groups in question functionally acted like other religious institutions and therefore were entitled to similar protections. (This fact has been obscured by imprecise comments, such as those of Justice Black, but is reflected in the text of particular rulings.)
* Most advocates aren't religious[citation needed] — Ideas such as the scientific method and evolution are advocated primarily by people who do not regard these ideas as being part of their religions, lending credibility to the claim that these ideas are not inherently religious.

Decisions about tax status have been based on whether an organization functions like a church. On the other hand, Establishment Clause cases turn on whether the ideas or symbols involved are inherently religious. An organization can function like a church while advocating beliefs that are not necessarily inherently religious.

Author Marci Hamilton has pointed out that the "Moreover the debate is not between secularists and the religious. The debate is believers and non-believers on the one side debating believers and non-believers on the other side. You've got citizens who are ... of faith who believe in the separation of church and state and you have a set of believers who do not believe in the separation of church and state."[24]

[zasanya]

I am from India.
According to 2001 census 2.3% of Indians are christians.That is a little more than 24 millions.It is the faith of the majority in Meghalaya (64.08%), Mizoram (85.73%) and Nagaland (87.47%). In one respect, we could call these 'Christian States', but the Christian population there rightly does not say so. In some States, the percentage of Christians is high - Goa (29.86), Manipur (34.11), Andaman and Nicobar (23.95) and Arunachal (10.29). In some other States, their population is more than a million: for example, Andra Pradesh (1.2 million) and Tamilnadu (3.2 million).
For me a Christian is one who believes in Jesus and goes to church.
I am an atheist and Marxist.

[BebopKid]

I am from the USA.

I am not sure of the total percentage of Christians, but believe it to be well under 50%.

Quote

2. Belief that Jesus is the Son of God, who physically appeared
on the earth, and whose teachings lead the way to Heaven

Close.

Belief that Jesus is the Son of God, who physically appeared
on the earth and repentance of sins in the knowledge that Jesus took our judgement as he died on the cross.

And while Baptism is not necessary to become a Christian, it is necessary to be Baptized, after repentance and acceptance of Jesus as Savior, to receive the Holy Spirit--who interceeds on our behalf.

[hrothgar]

BebopKid, on Feb 8 2007, 10:12 PM, said:

I am from the USA.

I am not sure of the total percentage of Christians, but believe it to be well under 50%.

Only off by a factor of two Bebop...

For you, this is quite the accomplishment (in a good sort of way). Keep up this type of improvement and you might actualy get a question right one of these days.

In 2001, the percentage of Americans self-identifying as Christian was (roughly) 80%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_...e_United_States

[DrTodd13]

I'm a Christian. Personally, I would add another caveat to the true Christian and that is that he is placing total faith in Christ as his sin-bearer and is relying on nothing else for salvation. If you ask someone what reason they would give to God as to why He should let them get into Heaven and the person goes into a laundry list of I did this and that then I would say that this person is not a Christian because ultimately they believe that Christ's sacrifice is insufficient and are in part relying on their own goodness. Since their goodness can never be perfect they can never achieve 100% goodness which is required for salvation. I find that a vast majority of Christians place some reliance on their own goodness or earthly deeds or ritual and are therefore doomed. I'd be surprised if 1 in 10 professed Christians were true believers.

[pclayton]

I am a Roman Catholic. I would say the following (using Peter's catergories):

1. Yes, but in a very conceptual state. I believe in an afterlife, but haven't precluded reincarnation as a possible state.

2. Yes, but in a very figurative sense.

3. No. I think this is a stereotype that a lot of non-christians label christians with; that they mindlessly follow dogma.

4. No, but I think its despicable. I also don't believe in the death penalty.

5. No, unfortunately. Its a tradition that we haven't kept up with.

6. Yes, I pray every night - for good suit splits, and honors in rubber games. OK< I add in the health of my family too

[pbleighton]

"Only off by a factor of two Bebop...

For you, this is quite the accomplishment (in a good sort of way). Keep up this type of improvement and you might actualy get a question right one of these days.

In 2001, the percentage of Americans self-identifying as Christian was (roughly) 80%"

Richard:

In the context of my question, the answer could easily be less than the self-identifying percentage. I personally put it at about 40%, though that is a huge guess.

Let me give you a couple of examples:

1. A relative (in-law) of mine was brought up Catholic. At this point in her life, she believes that the chances of some God existing is 50-50. She is sure there is some sort of afterlife, but is equally sure there is no Hell. She leans towards either reincarnation or some pure Buddhist melt-into-the-world. She only attands church on holidays, and for a brief period to get her son through communion.
2. Some friends of mine, a married couple, were also raised Catholic. They are sure there is no afterlife. They believe there is probably some sort of God, but pick and choose what parts of the Bible they follow or believe, and think Jesus' existence is problematical. They attend church regularly because they like to feel part of the Catholic community.

These three intelligent, well-educated people would tell a pollster they are Christians.

They can call themselves anything they want, but they aren't Christian by my definition. I know a fair number of people like this, more so in fact than "real Christians" (my sample is probably skewed, since I live in the Northeast and know mostly college-educated people, two conditions which increase this likelihood).

I believe a large percentage of self-identified Christians are actually either agnostics or are non-denominational believers in some vague God, who call themselves Christians because that is how they were raised.

Peter

[pbleighton]

"No. I think this is a stereotype that a lot of non-christians label christians with; that they mindlessly follow dogma."

This (belief in every word of the New testament) is true of a significant minority of Chritians in the U.S. Some of these people use this a test of whether someone is a true Christian or not. I don't, it is far too limiting.

Peter

[pclayton]

Peter, what is your motivation for these questions?

I'm a little bothered by the labels you are using.