So I just finished watching the first forty minutes of a 2010 debate between former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and renowned writer and journalist Christopher Hitchens. I have been giving in to persuasion recently that I really don't know enough about various atheist positions to really understand their viewpoints very well. It's a heated issue, but the highly viewed debate (it's more than two hours long and still has almost 250,000 views) was very well organized. The topic, "Is religion a force for good in the world?", is the central question that many individuals argue very passionately about. I say individuals because it is probably true that most people don't go around thinking about the question all day. Nevertheless, in the United Kingdom especially, the debate about religion among thinking people is especially strong. It was interesting to notice the makeup of the crowd in the audience. The debate was held in Toronto, Canada, and 57% of audience members actually disagreed with the premise of the debate. That's interesting given only about seventeen percent of Canadians consider themselves of no religion, according to the 2001 census. That the crowd generally agreed with Christopher Hitchens arguments was abundantly clear in the amount of cheering and applause that he received. Listening to Christopher Hitchens speak, I got the feeling that many who agree with or sympathize with atheist or agnostic positions are pragmatists. They don't fancy themselves people who oppose being good or promoting effective change in society. It seemed, however, that Hitchens was convinced of the role that government has in intervening in society in positive ways. In contrast, Tony Blair praised the work of many thousands of religious based organizations for their charitable work and involvement in countries around the world. Blair made the point that many who are religious are extremely motivated by their faith to give, and that that motivation stemming from their religious beliefs is crucial evidence that religion is a positive force in the world. At the same time, Hitchens makes the point that some of the most violent (if not the most violent) regions of the world are continually in conflict because of conflicts based on religious grounds. He points especially to the conflict in Palestine and the Middle East to support this statement.
In all, I would estimate that most people agree that religious teachings motivate many people to do good things. I would also suppose that a majority or at least a plurality of organizations that exist in the world whose sole purpose is to promote the welfare of other people have some sort of religious foundation. I would love to see the actual statistic for that actually. On the other hand, as Hitchens said, I would say that almost everyone would agree with the statement that people know what is right and wrong without religion having to tell them. I would really like know how publicized statements critical of religion are in the United Kingdom. If statements critical of religion and religious belief are common in the public conversations in the United Kingdom, could it be that the entire nation has shifted away from religious affiliation as a result? In Britain, as perhaps in any country, the tradition has always been to follow the lead of the elite. Are they but following the elite opinion away from religion today?
Showing posts with label Research Question. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Research Question. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Journal Entry #19 - 2/24/12
So this afternoon I met with Dr. Ray Christensen, my professor for Political Science 200: Political Inquiry, and told him about my project. After explaining to him a little bit of the history about the field study project and how it was the reason I decided to take Political Science 200 this semester, I told him about my research project and how I would be studying religion this summer while I'm there.
During our approximately twenty-five minute discussion, we accomplished a great deal. First of all, Dr. Christensen confirmed my observation that a descriptive study of opinions about religion would attract significantly less attention than an analytical one, and I should probably change my research question to reflect that. That, alone, is a pretty big change. He suggested that I study the difference in opinions of the elites about religion and compare those views to the opinions of the general population in England. I explained to him my concept idea for a survey that would ask Londoners to choose how many trends in the country listed on the survey they considered to have a negative effect on the nation. I would have a control group where "declining religiosity" would not be included, and a test group where it would be included. At that point, Dr. Christensen explained that surveys are extremely hard to use because it is so difficult to make them random. Call centers try to do the job by randomly calling numbers and talking to the people who answer, and although that isn't a perfect system either, it's as good as they can get. Since I can't do that, we decided that I could analyze the census data for the whole country and for London, and choose maybe three or four or five districts in London that have an ethnic, social class, and religious makeup that is fairly representative of the whole country. I could go to those districts and ask people to take the survey myself, perhaps knocking on every fifth or tenth door, or asking one man and one woman per bus, or something like that. It would be arduous work, but the payoff would be very interesting. He suggested having a research question with a dependent and independent variable - for example, the secular opinions voiced by elites in the United Kingdom have caused decreasing levels of religious affiliation in the United Kingdom in the last decade. He said I could possibly measure the opinions of elites by searching the Times for the last 5 or 10 years for all references to religious affiliation or secularism and cite how many times secular views were expressed by these elites. I suggested that I could look up comments given about religion by elites in the last year and compare how many positive statements were given as opposed to negative ones. Or, I could find a published list of "the most influential people" in the United Kingdom, or something of the sort, and then study each person on a case by case basis to see what kinds of views they have expressed about religion. Then I could compare that data to the data collected in my survey to see how the views of the elites line up with the views of the masses.
Another idea that I've had just thinking about it now would be to ask people to rate how favorably they feel about a statement made by a well-known person in society without telling them who said it, and include statements that were positive about religion and others that were negative about religion. I could compare how favorably people responded to these statements. I'll have to ask Dr. Christensen to get a better idea of how to do that though.
Anyway, overall, it was an incredibly productive conversation, and I recorded most of it on my iPhone so I can go back and listen again to remember some of the things we discussed. Dr. Christensen said that although he wouldn't be able to collaborate with me for a class over the summer, he would gladly be my faculty mentor. Also, I decided while we were talking that I would do my second Research Design assignment in the class on the topic chosen for the Field Study project, and Dr. Christensen agreed that it would definitely help. I'm more excited than ever about doing this project, and even though it's still pretty frightening, I think it could really make an impact on the debate in the country if it is very well-written and has a good research design. This will be some trip to London ;)
During our approximately twenty-five minute discussion, we accomplished a great deal. First of all, Dr. Christensen confirmed my observation that a descriptive study of opinions about religion would attract significantly less attention than an analytical one, and I should probably change my research question to reflect that. That, alone, is a pretty big change. He suggested that I study the difference in opinions of the elites about religion and compare those views to the opinions of the general population in England. I explained to him my concept idea for a survey that would ask Londoners to choose how many trends in the country listed on the survey they considered to have a negative effect on the nation. I would have a control group where "declining religiosity" would not be included, and a test group where it would be included. At that point, Dr. Christensen explained that surveys are extremely hard to use because it is so difficult to make them random. Call centers try to do the job by randomly calling numbers and talking to the people who answer, and although that isn't a perfect system either, it's as good as they can get. Since I can't do that, we decided that I could analyze the census data for the whole country and for London, and choose maybe three or four or five districts in London that have an ethnic, social class, and religious makeup that is fairly representative of the whole country. I could go to those districts and ask people to take the survey myself, perhaps knocking on every fifth or tenth door, or asking one man and one woman per bus, or something like that. It would be arduous work, but the payoff would be very interesting. He suggested having a research question with a dependent and independent variable - for example, the secular opinions voiced by elites in the United Kingdom have caused decreasing levels of religious affiliation in the United Kingdom in the last decade. He said I could possibly measure the opinions of elites by searching the Times for the last 5 or 10 years for all references to religious affiliation or secularism and cite how many times secular views were expressed by these elites. I suggested that I could look up comments given about religion by elites in the last year and compare how many positive statements were given as opposed to negative ones. Or, I could find a published list of "the most influential people" in the United Kingdom, or something of the sort, and then study each person on a case by case basis to see what kinds of views they have expressed about religion. Then I could compare that data to the data collected in my survey to see how the views of the elites line up with the views of the masses.
Another idea that I've had just thinking about it now would be to ask people to rate how favorably they feel about a statement made by a well-known person in society without telling them who said it, and include statements that were positive about religion and others that were negative about religion. I could compare how favorably people responded to these statements. I'll have to ask Dr. Christensen to get a better idea of how to do that though.
Anyway, overall, it was an incredibly productive conversation, and I recorded most of it on my iPhone so I can go back and listen again to remember some of the things we discussed. Dr. Christensen said that although he wouldn't be able to collaborate with me for a class over the summer, he would gladly be my faculty mentor. Also, I decided while we were talking that I would do my second Research Design assignment in the class on the topic chosen for the Field Study project, and Dr. Christensen agreed that it would definitely help. I'm more excited than ever about doing this project, and even though it's still pretty frightening, I think it could really make an impact on the debate in the country if it is very well-written and has a good research design. This will be some trip to London ;)
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Journal Entry #17 - 2/21/12
Working on Section B of my research proposal has caused me to think hard about my project this coming summer. It is one thing just to go to class, to participate, to do some minimal research and writing on a regular basis, and then to actually submit a finalized introduction to and justification for my research in London this summer. Drafting a careful, rational argument for the research I will do pushes me into a corner a little bit and forces me to come up with more valid arguments for my research than ever before. "It means gathering yourself together into a single point rather than letting yourself be dispersed everywhere into a cloud of electronic and social input," as William Deresiewicz said in a lecture given at West Point in October, 2009 (see the full speech here). However, preparing for the proposal draft has been very helpful, and I have had a lot of thoughts (mostly scattered, as usual) that I want to keep track of because they will be useful later, so I'll put a few down here:
First of all, I don't have a faculty mentor yet. However, I think I'm going to talk to my PL SC 200 teacher Ray Christensen and see if he could be mine. Dr. Christensen is so passionate and fascinated by social science research, and I think he will really be able to help me create the kind of really effective research design that will make this summer's project incredible. For instance, last week we talked about whether our "x's" in our research could be manipulated or not (i.e. randomized). I think that mine could. Because I have a hypothesis. I believe that although citizens in the United Kingdom have shown themselves to be decreasingly religious and increasingly liberal in their attitudes toward things such as the role of religion in forming public policy (74% agree or tend to a agree that religion shouldn't affect public policy according to a Ipsos MORI survey that was released last week) or whether it is wrong for a woman to have an abortion in the legal time limit (only 20% agree that it is wrong), I think that most British citizens generally feel that the decreasing religiosity of their country is hurting their country and their society. I read about a clever study that was done in the United States that sought to discover how supportive Americans really are of a Mormon President. They placed several unrelated characteristics in a list and asked the survey takers to give the number of negative characteristics on the list (without saying which ones they thought were positive). A control group was given the list without "is a mormon" or something to that effect, on the list, and the results were compared to those who were given a list that had "is a mormon" among the other characteristics. The results showed that there were significant concerns felt by many American about having a Mormon president, because the mean number of negative characteristics on the list increased when "is a Mormon" was added to the list. So, going back to my project, I think I might be able to use the same model to find out how Englanders feel about the decreasing religiosity in their country, and I could do it one of two ways. First, I could create a list of current trends or events occurring in the UK (like devolution, keeping the British pound, involvement in Syria, etc) and ask people to list the number of positive movements in the country from the list. I would have a control group that would take the survey without "decreasing religiosity" on the list, and another group with "decreasing religiosity" included. Then I would compare the results afterward. To do it the other way around, I could ask them to list the number of negative movements or events occurring in the country and perform the same experiment, with a control group and a normal group taking the survey. I think the latter would be more convincing, since if the reported number of negative movements in the country increased among those who had "decreasing religiosity" on the list, the change could be directly attributed to the negative feelings that Britons have toward the decreasing religiosity in the country. I theorize that most British citizens are aware of the positive effects that religious beliefs have in peoples lives, and although they are increasingly irreligious, most do not view the change in a positive light. Through interviews and surveys and talking to people, I hope to evaluate the various attitudes that people have toward the trend of decreasing religiosity in the country. The results of the study could either validate or vilify the actions of government in the United Kingdom in defense of religious liberties and Christian values.
First of all, I don't have a faculty mentor yet. However, I think I'm going to talk to my PL SC 200 teacher Ray Christensen and see if he could be mine. Dr. Christensen is so passionate and fascinated by social science research, and I think he will really be able to help me create the kind of really effective research design that will make this summer's project incredible. For instance, last week we talked about whether our "x's" in our research could be manipulated or not (i.e. randomized). I think that mine could. Because I have a hypothesis. I believe that although citizens in the United Kingdom have shown themselves to be decreasingly religious and increasingly liberal in their attitudes toward things such as the role of religion in forming public policy (74% agree or tend to a agree that religion shouldn't affect public policy according to a Ipsos MORI survey that was released last week) or whether it is wrong for a woman to have an abortion in the legal time limit (only 20% agree that it is wrong), I think that most British citizens generally feel that the decreasing religiosity of their country is hurting their country and their society. I read about a clever study that was done in the United States that sought to discover how supportive Americans really are of a Mormon President. They placed several unrelated characteristics in a list and asked the survey takers to give the number of negative characteristics on the list (without saying which ones they thought were positive). A control group was given the list without "is a mormon" or something to that effect, on the list, and the results were compared to those who were given a list that had "is a mormon" among the other characteristics. The results showed that there were significant concerns felt by many American about having a Mormon president, because the mean number of negative characteristics on the list increased when "is a Mormon" was added to the list. So, going back to my project, I think I might be able to use the same model to find out how Englanders feel about the decreasing religiosity in their country, and I could do it one of two ways. First, I could create a list of current trends or events occurring in the UK (like devolution, keeping the British pound, involvement in Syria, etc) and ask people to list the number of positive movements in the country from the list. I would have a control group that would take the survey without "decreasing religiosity" on the list, and another group with "decreasing religiosity" included. Then I would compare the results afterward. To do it the other way around, I could ask them to list the number of negative movements or events occurring in the country and perform the same experiment, with a control group and a normal group taking the survey. I think the latter would be more convincing, since if the reported number of negative movements in the country increased among those who had "decreasing religiosity" on the list, the change could be directly attributed to the negative feelings that Britons have toward the decreasing religiosity in the country. I theorize that most British citizens are aware of the positive effects that religious beliefs have in peoples lives, and although they are increasingly irreligious, most do not view the change in a positive light. Through interviews and surveys and talking to people, I hope to evaluate the various attitudes that people have toward the trend of decreasing religiosity in the country. The results of the study could either validate or vilify the actions of government in the United Kingdom in defense of religious liberties and Christian values.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Journal Entry #14
In our last class period, we analyzed our projects and our project research and identified areas where we could do more research to strengthen our understanding of our topics. I noticed that one area where my research was weak was in current opinion leaders in the United Kingdom. My only cited source taken from a current well-known leader in the UK was PM David Cameron. Last week, however, I did cite an article that reported on the plan of one well-known atheist to build a "temple to atheism", but other than Cameron's words I have not researched the views of any specific individuals whose opinions might resonate with people in the UK.
For today, I cited a speech given by Sayeeda Warsi that was given on January 20, 2011. To me, it was a remarkable speech to be given by a member of Parliament and of the current government about religion, and was cited by the 28th British Social Attitudes Survey that was published at the end of 2011. Her comments, coming from the first Muslim member of Parliament, were very bold in their condemnation of religious bigotry in the nation and the persistence of attitudes such as Islamaphobia and other stereotyping of religious groups or minorities. It's interesting to note her boldness with that of David Cameron's, for it shows how willing the current Conservative government is to express opinions about religion very openly. In the British Social Attitudes Survey made this last year, the author Lucy Lee commented that with the decreasing influence of religion in the lives of Britons, the opinions expressed by current government leaders is likely to resonate less and less with average citizens than before. I suppose it may never have been studied to what degree the opinions expressed by government leaders has an effect on the opinions of the populace. I, however, do believe that the influence of well known people in society have a significant influence on the normal members of society because they shape the debate of the country. It could be that Britons simply have thought much about their religious attitudes very much. Debating it openly may bring about a more assertive response from the populace about where their values really lie - whether they are for or against religion. It will interesting to use these comments as I ask questions to individuals while in London to discover how they feel about them.
For today, I cited a speech given by Sayeeda Warsi that was given on January 20, 2011. To me, it was a remarkable speech to be given by a member of Parliament and of the current government about religion, and was cited by the 28th British Social Attitudes Survey that was published at the end of 2011. Her comments, coming from the first Muslim member of Parliament, were very bold in their condemnation of religious bigotry in the nation and the persistence of attitudes such as Islamaphobia and other stereotyping of religious groups or minorities. It's interesting to note her boldness with that of David Cameron's, for it shows how willing the current Conservative government is to express opinions about religion very openly. In the British Social Attitudes Survey made this last year, the author Lucy Lee commented that with the decreasing influence of religion in the lives of Britons, the opinions expressed by current government leaders is likely to resonate less and less with average citizens than before. I suppose it may never have been studied to what degree the opinions expressed by government leaders has an effect on the opinions of the populace. I, however, do believe that the influence of well known people in society have a significant influence on the normal members of society because they shape the debate of the country. It could be that Britons simply have thought much about their religious attitudes very much. Debating it openly may bring about a more assertive response from the populace about where their values really lie - whether they are for or against religion. It will interesting to use these comments as I ask questions to individuals while in London to discover how they feel about them.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Journal Entry #13
As it happens, thirteen is my favorite number, and this is my thirteenth learning journal post. Bangarang.
As I've been doing research these last few days, I've been trying to look at the work I've done and the direction I'm going with this project in a more global way. My work so far has been somewhat arbitrary, as I've searched for articles and studies online, and essentially read the first ones that have come up. However, religion is something that has been heavily researched for more than fifty years, and entire journals are dedicated to the study of different aspects of religion. In order to focus my work while I'm in London, my research beforehand has to be more focused.
So I started collecting references to other papers using the research articles I have already read. A lot of the referenced articles are rather straightforward, using statistical tests and surveys to prove correlations between religiosity and attitudes about premarital sex, drug use, criminality, marriage and marital longevity, family unity, work ethic, academic performance, and physical health. Then, I created another sections for studies that have analyzed the academic strength of religious schools. The study that I cited for last class had a different unit of analysis: it analyzed academic performance and religiosity comparing the connection between individual academic performance and individual religiosity instead of the religiosity of the school and the academic performance of that entire school, which many previous studies had done. Lastly, I am creating a list of cited studies that concern religion and religious beliefs in a more general way, including how to measure religiosity.
This is all well and good, and should be very helpful in the future as I'm deciding on what research papers to study for my project. I want to have a pretty thorough understanding of what has been researched and understood by social scientists about religion and religious behavior in various contexts of life. While I'm in London, I will probably decide on a couple of aspects of religiosity to focus on in the surveys I'll be giving and the interviews I'll be conducting, but it will be very good to have an over-arching understanding of how religiosity has been shown to be a contributing factor to certain behaviors, attitudes, and social factors. It will be very interesting to see how individuals in London believe religion makes a difference in their lives and how past research has provided evidence supporting or disproving these assumptions. Since my research question focuses mainly on what Londoners believe are the positive and negative effects of decreasing religiosity, my topic allows for changes in public policy that might better inform the public about how religiosity affects individuals and society. Then again, if what they all think matches up perfectly with what has been proven to happen, that would be pretty remarkable all by itself.
As I've been doing research these last few days, I've been trying to look at the work I've done and the direction I'm going with this project in a more global way. My work so far has been somewhat arbitrary, as I've searched for articles and studies online, and essentially read the first ones that have come up. However, religion is something that has been heavily researched for more than fifty years, and entire journals are dedicated to the study of different aspects of religion. In order to focus my work while I'm in London, my research beforehand has to be more focused.
So I started collecting references to other papers using the research articles I have already read. A lot of the referenced articles are rather straightforward, using statistical tests and surveys to prove correlations between religiosity and attitudes about premarital sex, drug use, criminality, marriage and marital longevity, family unity, work ethic, academic performance, and physical health. Then, I created another sections for studies that have analyzed the academic strength of religious schools. The study that I cited for last class had a different unit of analysis: it analyzed academic performance and religiosity comparing the connection between individual academic performance and individual religiosity instead of the religiosity of the school and the academic performance of that entire school, which many previous studies had done. Lastly, I am creating a list of cited studies that concern religion and religious beliefs in a more general way, including how to measure religiosity.
This is all well and good, and should be very helpful in the future as I'm deciding on what research papers to study for my project. I want to have a pretty thorough understanding of what has been researched and understood by social scientists about religion and religious behavior in various contexts of life. While I'm in London, I will probably decide on a couple of aspects of religiosity to focus on in the surveys I'll be giving and the interviews I'll be conducting, but it will be very good to have an over-arching understanding of how religiosity has been shown to be a contributing factor to certain behaviors, attitudes, and social factors. It will be very interesting to see how individuals in London believe religion makes a difference in their lives and how past research has provided evidence supporting or disproving these assumptions. Since my research question focuses mainly on what Londoners believe are the positive and negative effects of decreasing religiosity, my topic allows for changes in public policy that might better inform the public about how religiosity affects individuals and society. Then again, if what they all think matches up perfectly with what has been proven to happen, that would be pretty remarkable all by itself.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Statement of Intent
Many studies have documented the current trend of decreasing religiosity in Britain. As a visitor in London, England this summer ('12), I plan to study the trend of decreasing religiosity in the country. According to studies completed in the last year, this decrease in religiosity is being felt almost exclusively in the Church of England, whose membership has halved in the last three decades. Membership in other religions have stayed the same, and non-christian membership has increased as a result of immigration. I am interested to know what motives or attitudes may have caused this disaffection from the Church of England, and why these attitudes have not had a similar effect on other religions in the country. It can be inferred from the data from recent surveys that those who have left the Church of England have not joined other Christian religions, but have dropped out of religious life entirely. I am interested in discovering why no religion is preferred over other christian religions. Lastly, I am interested in discovering how Britons themselves feel about these changes. How many see increasing secularism as a positive change? How many believe it is a negative change? If increasing secularism is a negative change, what harmful effects to society are expected by these changes, and how many of these harmful effects can be observed?
Moreover, I hope this field study will be beneficial because it gives me a chance to apply skills of research and writing that I am developing as a college student in the International Relations program in the actual execution of a research project. My topic deals directly with religion, something I have grown used to asking people about during two years as a missionary in Brazil. In contrast to active proselytizing, this project allows me to approach the topic from a scholastic perspective. I care about how people think about God, and believe the moral basis of religion is an essential part of a successful society. Speaking of of the whole United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron stated, "We are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so." By researching (and hopefully presenting) information about how attitudes about religion are changing in England, I hope people are motivated to think more deeply about the positive a role a belief in God plays in their lives. I recognize that I have a specific point of view about religion due to my upbringing and personal experiences. Still, I hope that seeing the results of religion or the lack thereof will help people to make better decisions about their own lives, and I expect that studying the role of religion in society will further strengthen my core beliefs and values as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Moreover, I hope this field study will be beneficial because it gives me a chance to apply skills of research and writing that I am developing as a college student in the International Relations program in the actual execution of a research project. My topic deals directly with religion, something I have grown used to asking people about during two years as a missionary in Brazil. In contrast to active proselytizing, this project allows me to approach the topic from a scholastic perspective. I care about how people think about God, and believe the moral basis of religion is an essential part of a successful society. Speaking of of the whole United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron stated, "We are a Christian country. And we should not be afraid to say so." By researching (and hopefully presenting) information about how attitudes about religion are changing in England, I hope people are motivated to think more deeply about the positive a role a belief in God plays in their lives. I recognize that I have a specific point of view about religion due to my upbringing and personal experiences. Still, I hope that seeing the results of religion or the lack thereof will help people to make better decisions about their own lives, and I expect that studying the role of religion in society will further strengthen my core beliefs and values as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Journal Entry #3
I've been thinking about my research question a bit more, and there are a few more thoughts that I put down about what I'm going to be studying that I want to post here. These aren't very organized thoughts, but they are my raw thoughts and questions:
So, many studies have documented the current trend of decreasing religiosity in Britain. I'm interested in knowing people's opinions about what the people themselves consider are the reasons for this increasing secularization. Is it because of the moral restrictions religions teach? Is it because of a history of church corruption and manipulation? Is it because of the poor examples of religious leaders and recent scandals? Do they believe the arguments of secular societies that a secular viewpoint is superior and more fulfilling than religious beliefs?
Are there differences in the reasons identified for this change depending on age, sex, education, religion, and income?
What are the principal reasons for the resilience of the Catholic religion, which has higher rates of attendence among its members? (65% attend at least annually as opposed to 43% of those who consider themselves Anglican. 45% at least monthly - Catholics. Only 18% attend at least monthly of those that consider themselves Anglican) The Catholic church also shows a steady percentage (about 10%) of the population over the past three decades.
Other Christian churches also show higher levels of attendance (43% attend at least monthly), and they have maintained about 15% of the population of the country over the past three decades. What are they doing that the leaders of the Church of England aren't?
So, many studies have documented the current trend of decreasing religiosity in Britain. I'm interested in knowing people's opinions about what the people themselves consider are the reasons for this increasing secularization. Is it because of the moral restrictions religions teach? Is it because of a history of church corruption and manipulation? Is it because of the poor examples of religious leaders and recent scandals? Do they believe the arguments of secular societies that a secular viewpoint is superior and more fulfilling than religious beliefs?
Are there differences in the reasons identified for this change depending on age, sex, education, religion, and income?
What are the principal reasons for the resilience of the Catholic religion, which has higher rates of attendence among its members? (65% attend at least annually as opposed to 43% of those who consider themselves Anglican. 45% at least monthly - Catholics. Only 18% attend at least monthly of those that consider themselves Anglican) The Catholic church also shows a steady percentage (about 10%) of the population over the past three decades.
Other Christian churches also show higher levels of attendance (43% attend at least monthly), and they have maintained about 15% of the population of the country over the past three decades. What are they doing that the leaders of the Church of England aren't?
My Research Question
Many studies have documented the current trend of decreasing religiosity in Britain.
What do Britons believe to be the principle reason behind the decreasing religiosity in their society? How many Britons believe this is a positive change, and how many see it as a negative change? For those who believe the change has a negative effect on society, what are the most important negative impacts? For those who believe the change has a positive effect, what do they consider to be the major benefits to society?
What do Britons believe to be the principle reason behind the decreasing religiosity in their society? How many Britons believe this is a positive change, and how many see it as a negative change? For those who believe the change has a negative effect on society, what are the most important negative impacts? For those who believe the change has a positive effect, what do they consider to be the major benefits to society?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)