Religion vs Science study help

[Serpentia]

Boy, what a feast. I get to confuse another survey.

I believe in Science *grin*, I believe in God/dess, I believe in Magic, I believe in creating my own reality..

serpentia
Correction: except for Science, I know these things, as in I have experienced them personally ..

[Lily]

I wonder whether Mike posted this in proper natural or social science fora, where he might get even more feedback on this study design... and a broader base of respondents

Mike, somebody should have warned you before asking druids for their opinions.
Don't be alarmed, this is normal .

ROFL

Serpentia... believing in science is impossible... well unless you choose insted of understanding it yourself, to have it fed to you like a fairy tale....

[Serpentia]

What is truth?

[Lily]

DOOOONNNN'TTTT....

oops, too late. you've opened a can of worms there, Serpentia...

[Serpentia]

Aha... well, unless I have studied the subject matter myself at an appropriate depth, I don't really know, do I? So the element of belief is predominant, isn't it? I mean I believe what scientists have told me about, say, dinosaurs. I personally do not know most of it. Yes, I have that option to study it, but unless I do.. you see?

Back to the questionnaire: What's evidence? I also notice the questions tend to be a bit emotional.. I don't "hate" anybody, not even tree killers. Hate is a very personal thing and has no room in such a survey, I think.

Serpentia
What's this? "It is a noble thing when someone holds the same beliefs as their parents" I need an option for "Not applicable"! Some of these questions are definitely presumptious.

[Serpentia]

My beliefs would not have been very different if I had been raised by a different set of parents. *

What IF???? How the hell should I know?

*opens trash can and throws the thing in there with a bang*

I love surveys, but this is ridiculous. We just lately had one on the German forum about pagans and how they feel about nature, I should give that one to Mike to show him how it's done.

Serpentia
Sorry, Lily, I did not mean to start a sub-thread here on science vs. religion. And I will stop now!!!

[MikeW]

Hi Everyone. Thank you for great responses, and to those who have taken the time so far to take the survey thank you so much.Just to raise a few points:


1) I have posted this same survey to many atheist and scientific forums as well as meeting with focus groups.

2) The user who stated my explanation of my survey as 'bad science'. First of all, using the word 'hypothesis' is a far more succinct way to describe the corrections you made. Everything you stated as a correction is implied by that word. Secondly, I take your point about mentioning my hypothesis before the questionnaire is taken. It may result in participants attempting to answer with that in mind. I've edited my initial post. I;m quite tired having posted this to over 40 sites so far.

3) For those who are worried about the ambiguity; the initial questions are used to categorise participants. For the questions about supernatural or spiritual belief, by 'or' I mean any of these. It is used to determine where your answers should go in the data set.

4) Please keep in mind, this questionnaire is not mine. My masters does not allocate enough time for me to create and test a survey of my own, so we must use previous established surveys to investigate something they have not been used for. Any criticisms are welcome!


Keep all the great feedback coming and please take the survey if you have time. Any criticism, suggestions etc are all welcome as for my dissertation it will help to highlight any errors I may have made or problems with my study that can be included when written up.

Thanks again everyone, keep the answers coming!

[Mountainheart]

What is truth?

Our best guess at reality...



David

[cursuswalker]

I wonder whether Mike posted this in proper natural or social science fora, where he might get even more feedback on this study design... and a broader base of respondents

Mike, somebody should have warned you before asking druids for their opinions.
Don't be alarmed, this is normal .

ROFL

Serpentia... believing in science is impossible... well unless you choose insted of understanding it yourself, to have it fed to you like a fairy tale....

Well if he didn't post it to such fora I did. It is now on RatSkep, the current home of all those who left the Dawkins forum when he started playing silly buggers with it.

I expect it to receive a lot of peer-review there.

[DJ Droood]

believing in science is impossible... well unless you choose insted of understanding it yourself, to have it fed to you like a fairy tale....

Well that is the boat I am in..I have little scientific education/training (probably on par with my religious education and training) and will admit to not understanding much of what scientists have to say, much of the time...I just find their fairy tales (and colourful pictures!) more life-affirming and spiritually uplifting...and believable...than "My Bronze Age imaginary friend hates you....vote for me!"

[treegod]

Ditto DJ Droood.

I have only fifth, fourth, third, and maybe second hand knowledge of science; it's theories, methods etc And any first hand knowledge comes from unverifiable experience (sorry, not in the habit of collecting the data of my everyday life, you'll have to take my word for it that I DO put on the kettle for a tea most morning lol) or a few, very basic school lessons and experiments. I might be well informed but I am not trained at all, at least not officially.

@ MikeW, interesting survey. Are the results going to be published? Where/when?

[Lily]

*cough* ... if not having studied science makes you somehow unqualified to discuss science beyond using a tea kettle / makes you a believer... how does not having studied theologiy make you (or any religionist arguing for their point) make you more qualified for discussing religion beyond, erm, eating a host, for example?

this is not against any of those participating in the discussion, more against those who argue their religious points so strongly.
They all seem experts from personal experience, why can a faithful tea kettle user not be?
Isn't there a discrepancy in the narrative?

[MikeW]

It's for my dissertation project so doubt it would get published in a journal, but I will post an online version of it for you all to look at when I'm finished

Cursuswalker: Thanks for posting it elsewhere. Is there any chance you could give me a link so I could take a look?

I should stress that the survey requires no scientific knowledge, in fact if anyone is not trained in a scientific discipline, it would really help me if they took the survey. Thanks.

[DJ Droood]

*cough* ... if not having studied science makes you somehow unqualified to discuss science beyond using a tea kettle / makes you a believer... how does not having studied theologiy make you (or any religionist arguing for their point) make you more qualified for discussing religion beyond, erm, eating a host, for example?

ultimately we can't be experts on every topic...I suppose some of us have to settle for believing what makes us comfortable...if it is a debate between Evolution and Creationism, for instance, short of getting a PHD in evolutionary biology and also a Captain's Hat from Oral Roberts Bible College (or whatever Creationist educational certificates are called)...the lay person like myself has to look at easy to digest "opinions"...like maybe reading Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker", and then balance it out by talking to a hillbilly and have them tell you that their pastor told them that The God hates monkeys (I'm paraphrasing here..I'm not sure of the actual terms they use)...and deciding which opinion seems more reasonable....comfortable...

[cursuswalker]

Cursuswalker: Thanks for posting it elsewhere. Is there any chance you could give me a link so I could take a look?

Certainly:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 20295.html

But please be aware that your methodology is seriously flawed if you want accurate survey results. Not the survey itself (apart from question 10) but the fact that you are revealing your desired outcome to those participating in the survey. You sohludn't even really be revealing your hypothesis.

The reason for this is very simple: As a member of the "new atheist movement" I knew that you were attempting to prove me more closed minded than non-atheists while I was doing the survey. This will inevitably affect my responses. This is not dishonesty. It is just an inevitable result of that knowledge.

I should stress that the survey requires no scientific knowledge, in fact if anyone is not trained in a scientific discipline, it would really help me if they took the survey. Thanks.

But, forgive me, you are studying for an MSc. That puts a duty upon you to use rigourous research protocols, such as those suggested above. And it does not take being a scientist to know that.

To add to the above, how are you sampling? Which fora are you posting this to? Is there a pre-determiend number of responses (form each forum or in total) that you wil stop sampling at, so as to avoid the possibility of stopping when you reach a desired result?

[Lily]

It's for my dissertation project so doubt it would get published in a journal, but I will post an online version of it for you all to look at when I'm finished .

that does not mean it should be any less rigorous in method, did you discuss your strategy for data collection with your supervisor?

[cursuswalker]

Hi Everyone. Thank you for great responses, and to those who have taken the time so far to take the survey thank you so much.Just to raise a few points:


1) I have posted this same survey to many atheist and scientific forums as well as meeting with focus groups.

Good to hear.

2) The user who stated my explanation of my survey as 'bad science'. First of all, using the word 'hypothesis' is a far more succinct way to describe the corrections you made. Everything you stated as a correction is implied by that word. Secondly, I take your point about mentioning my hypothesis before the questionnaire is taken. It may result in participants attempting to answer with that in mind. I've edited my initial post. I;m quite tired having posted this to over 40 sites so far.

That advanced mention of the aims of the research is all that makes it "bad". The survey itself is reasonably well constructed, with repeated question to ensure consistency in those responding etc.

The point is that IF people such as me really are more closed minded then that is an important finding. MY hypothesis is that they will not prove to be, but neither of us can state any such thing with any degree of certainty without rigourous research methods.

[cursuswalker]

The OP still states:

It is a rebuttal to the new atheist movement

From Wikipedia (for convenience):

In law, rebuttal is a form of evidence that is presented to contradict or nullify other evidence that has been presented by an adverse party. By analogy the same term is used in politics and public affairs to refer to the informal process by which statements, designed to refute or negate specific arguments put forward by opponents, are deployed in the media.

In what way can it be stated that this research is such a rebuttal BEFORE the research evidence has been gathered? It might be one. Then again it might be exactly the opposite. Or something inbetween.

[cursuswalker]

Having done a little digging of my own, this survey is based upon one produced by Keith E. Stanovich

http://web.mac.com/kstanovich/Site/Adul ... Scale.html

Among other works he wrote 'The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin' which can be read here:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gib3 ... &q&f=false

The book makes a few too many uses of the words 'Darwinism' and 'neo-Darwinism' for my comfort, but does not, at first glance, seem to consist of religious apologetics as such.

[MikeW]

When the number of respondents reaches a specific level, the analysis will begin. As for a 'rebuttal'. I made a mistake while posting here because I have been up for about 30 hours, that section of my post was copied and pasted from an email to an administrator of a forum asking for them to post my survey link.So again, apologies for the gross error.

As for my hypothesis, it is a very, very loose one. It is an exploratory study, so I have no idea how it will turn out, nor do I care to be honest which way the data goes. I am neither religious nor Atheist; however, from the literature I have read, and the studies I have looked at, I believe the evidence suggest that my hypothesis may be correct. Primarily, it is focussed on the psychology of belief and as such is highly theoretical in many cases dealing with theological issues rather than scientific ones.

The Msc I am doing is in Research Methods and statistics, as such, the 'quality' of the study is not so important, what is important is that any mistakes or methodological errors made are addressed in the write up. I only had 3 months to completely re-jig my project as an American University decided to try to charge me for use of a scale in my previous study which was ridiculous. So it is all very last minute, I just have to make do.

Thanks for the feedback!


Mike