UKC

Suppose you asked a question: "Irrespective of whether you believe in Father Christmas, what would you ask Santa for?"

Would it be fair to then conclude that anyone who mentioned anything they would like (an iPad, new shoes, chocolate) therefore "believed in Santa"?

Well, if you are a Church of England spin-doctor then, amazingly, you would indeed conclude that. The CofE asked ICM to conduct a poll asking "Irrespective of whether you currently pray or not, if you were to pray for something at the moment, what would it be for?". Lots of people answered world peace, an end to poverty, a family member, etc.

And the CofE counted them all up and announced: "Four out of five British adults believe in the power of prayer". Gob-smacked! Intellectual honesty is really not a Christian strong point.

http://www.churchofengland.org/media-centre/news/2013/03/four-out-of-five-b...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'm trying to work out if it's a lack of integrity, or mere stupidity. Pretty mental either way.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That is indeed a misleading way of headlining the exercise. Which I take it was about trying to connect with people's hopes and aspirations, not with assessing whether they "believe in the power of prayer".

A phrase with disquieting magical connotations, incidentally. I do believe I've had prayers answered. But at a deeper level, I think prayer is much more about admitting one's powerlessness than about exercising one's spooky powers.

Jesus said "Whatever you ask for in my name, it will be granted"; but he also prayed to be delivered from the Cross. And wasn't.

In reply to Coel Hellier: I'd agree it's a badly-worded and poorly interpreted poll. However, equally, when a science paper is published, and then subsequently ridiculed (eg. recent thread on here about fossils found in meterite), do we conclude then that "intellectual honesty is not Science's strong point" too?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Why is it surprising that an organisation that believes in virgin birth, resurrection and transubstantiation is not too worried about strict adherence to the rules of logical deduction?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Try that again. We don't believe in transubstantiation. That's the Catholics

In reply to Tim Chappell: ... you have belief in the numinous in common shurely ?

In reply to lummox:

We shurely do. But that's different.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Surely there are still some Catholics left in the CofE, they didn't all go off to the Ordinariate did they?

In reply to owlart:


I think one can indeed cast aspersions on the intellectual honesty of the authors of that paper. However it wasn't refereed or published in a recognised science journal, or backed by any scientific body or authority, so it is not fair to blame science. In this case the press release was put out by the CofE, the recognised leading Christian body in the land.

In reply to Clarence:

There's a difference between a catholic and a Catholic. I'm a catholic

In reply to Tim Chappell:

No it isn't.

In reply to Coel Hellier: I am curious to know why you have picked on the CofE specifically rather than say, politicians, the media, big pharma, cosmetics companies, toothpaste marketing, the MMR idiot, Gillian McKeith and any number of other of interests who take a set of numbers and give them a customised interpretation.

In reply to Tim Chappell:

Before I went pagan I was Anglo-Catholic and Consubstantiation was very much regarded as the heresy of the liberal wing of the church. Transubstantiation, the assumption of Mary and all that guff was very much de rigeur.

In reply to lummox:


Erm, it isn't different to believe in a numinous presence, i.e. God, and to believe that the bread and wine undergo substantial change at consecration, into actual flesh and blood?

I'm intrigued! How are these beliefs the same thing?

In reply to EeeByGum:


If any of those other organisation put out spin this blatantly bad you be sure they'd get ridiculed also. If any of the main political parties did it the news organisations would make an issue of it.

In reply to Coel Hellier: So if, say, the Royal Institute of Chemisty had published equally poor research, would you accept that all physicists were "intellectually dishonest" too then?

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Now forgive me, but they are both manifestations of belief in a numinous being no ?

In reply to owlart:

Well, this press release is not the only data point underpinning my comment about the intellectual honesty of Christians.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


If I was the Archbish of Canterbury I think I might have a gentle word with the journos who composed that headline.

Beyond that, Coel, I think this, as believer-bating, comes in at about the level of "nice try".

In reply to lummox:



And that makes them the same thing?

...OK, if you say so. What was your point again?

In reply to Coel Hellier: Do you regard all Christians to be "intellectually dishonest" then? Does this mean that if a scientist who was also Christian published a paper in Nature, you'd distrust it? Or are you just repeating the fact that you don't agree with Christianity? If so, nothing new here, move along please.

In reply to Tim Chappell: unlike Coel, I haven't the time or the inclination to willy wave with you over what seems to give you both wood in different ways... my point was that you seemed dismissive of the RC notion of transubstantiation, which seems like nitpicking when you all share essentially the same belief..

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Are you serious? I mean really???? For someone so entrenched in facts and "the truth", you seem to have made a very naive claim.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


As you say, the Bish needs to have a word with the evangelicals in his press office. I think the lournos were only quoting the press release, which was a teensy weensy bit disingenuous

In reply to Tim Chappell:


And their lackeys in the pro-Christian press lap it up uncritically.

"Britons still believe in prayer - and young lead the way, poll suggests. Six out of seven people still believe that prayers can be answered despite a dramatic drop in formal religious observance, a study has found."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9953128/Britons-still-believe-in-p...

It's for this sort of reason -- the flock lapping it up uncritically -- that I suspect that the misrepresentation in the press release was entirely deliberate (and not just journalistic over-egging), hence my "intellectual honesty" comment.

In reply to lummox:


No, I wasn't being dismissive. Sorry if it came across that way. I was merely pointing out that it isn't in fact what the Anglicans believe officially. (Insofar as they believe anything officially...)

In reply to EeeByGum:


Yes, I'm serious. This sort of claim/press-release by a political party would be scrutinised and critiqued by the media and the flaws and misrepresentation point out. When it's by the CofE some papers just report it uncritically. Religious opinions/claims are usually treated much less critically than political ones.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You've moving into tinfoil-hat territory now!

In reply to owlart:


Hmm. First, no I wouldn't regard any statement as applying to *all* Christians (all couple of billion of them).

Second, I do indeed regard religions such as Christianity to be largely a matter of wishful thinking coupled with self-deception over that wishful thinking. So, yes, I do think that on the whole Christian thinking about Christianity is not intellectually honest.


Humans are very good at compartmentalisation, being honest and unbiased on some topics but not so on others. Thus plenty of Christians can be perfectly good scientists and if the topic of the scientific paper was not relevant to religion then I'd treat their religious views as irrelevant when evaluating it.

But, if the Christian religious views were relevant to the topic of the paper, then that is one factor I'd take into account when evaluating it. Ditto for other ideological views by the way.

In reply to owlart:


I disagree that it is "tinfoil-hat territory" to suggest that the CofE might deliberately misrepresent something to their advantage.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


they seem to have forgotten to enable comments.
Shame, Bruce is getting boring now and seeing how long till i got banned could have been amusing.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I pray. I'm not Christian (although brought up by methodists). I seriously don't expect my prayer to be answered. If they are, I assume it's a complete fluke. Statistically as strong as if I bet on a horse race, and hey, wow, I must know about horses cause my horse came in second.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


<whistles, sits on hands, smiles blandly at Coel>

In reply to Coel Hellier:

On this, I don't know if the CofE are lying feckers or ignorant twunts.

Has this puff been picked up in the media?

In reply to lowersharpnose:


Yep, see my link to the Telegraph above. Sensible newspapers have been more critical, e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2013/mar/26/1

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I'd go further and say that deliberately misrepresenting something to their advantage is a basic requirement of any religion.

In reply to EeeByGum:

What he ^^^^ said.

Sx

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Do you mean like the MMR vaccine scandal? If any of the papers had actually bothered to read the original study rather than just the press release, they would have seen instantly that it was a load of balls. Instead, they decided to sensationalise it and as a result three diseases are now on the rise.

And MPs have for years been quoting figures from studies and reports out of context and yet the mainstream press just lap it up. It is only the likes of Ben Golding (Bad Science) and Tim Harford (Undercover Economist) that point out the inaccuracies, but it is never headline news that politicians and the like pick statistics to suit their own end. Nor are their claims challenged at the point where they are said. The bottom line is that politicians have a sound bite to get out and reporters have X-thousand words to submit before a deadline. No one cares if what is written is balls.

In reply to Sarah G:


so unless he comments on everything he cant comment on anything?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

From ED article about Christians: 'They are well known for rejecting science in all its forms and ironically, themselves serve as proof that there is no intelligent design.'

Very true.

In reply to lemonparty:

The punctuation at the foot of the page is shit too. Bloody C of E.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The headline is a staggeringly blatant lie.

The responses to the actual question are quite interesting.

In reply to MG:

Yes; like I said, I take it the point of the original inquiry was to engage with people's actual hopes, aspirations, and fears. Which is a good and interesting place to start, if you want to think seriously about religion.

Alternatively we could all go round the usual mulberry bushes one more time. Or you lot could; if that's the game then I'm not playing

In reply to the thread:

Ben Goldacre's comment on this:

"The Church of England's prayer survey story is a hilariously huge unambiguous pointless lying big fat porky pie lie."

In reply to Coel Hellier: praise the lord and my sandals