Posted by Ir (Helen) on: 06.12.2007 /
A new study by The Barna Group examines the numbers, lifestyles and self-perceptions of America’s atheists and agnostics, contrasting the no-faith audience with those who actively participate in the Christian faith.
Early in the article it is noted that
Atheists and agnostics are distinct demographically from the active-faith segment. The no-faith audience is younger, and more likely to be male and unmarried. They also earn more and are more likely to be college graduates.
(This of course is based on their survey, which included 1005 atheists and agnostics in total)
I wish that instead of comparing aggregate results, they’d taken, say, the young male unmarried college graduate Christians and atheists and agnostics and compared their answers. Because the differences between demographic groups can be huge and now we have no way of knowing how much of the differences they found were due to demographics rather than different beliefs/nonbeliefs.
For example, I think the following section could be significantly influenced by demographic differences. Young unmarried males are less likely to be settled in a community which I would think may well make them less likely to be helping the community. And since they are college graduates maybe they are paying off student loans so they have less money to give to charitable causes.
Independent…and Disengaged
One of the most significant differences between active-faith and no-faith Americans is the cultural disengagement and sense of independence exhibited by atheists and agnostics in many areas of life. They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as “active in the community” (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%). They are also more likely to be registered to vote as an independent or with a non-mainstream political party.
One of the outcomes of this profile - and one of the least favorable points of comparison for atheist and agnostic adults - is the paltry amount of money they donate to charitable causes. The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.
I liked this:
Three-quarters of no-faith adults said they are clear about the meaning and purpose of their life
The following may reflect a perception by Christians that they are supposed to say they are ‘at peace’ (it’s the right answer; to say otherwise may imply inadequacy as a Christian) whereas no-faith adults don’t have a right answer to whether they are ‘at peace’.
One of the largest gaps was the perception of being “at peace,” a description less frequently embraced by no-faith adults (67% versus 90%).
They did find some common ground (notwithstanding the different demographics)
Nevertheless, there were a number of areas of commonality between the two audiences. The two groups were equally as likely to think of themselves as good citizens, as placing their family first, as being loyal and reliable individuals, as preferring to be in control, and as being leaders. Each group admitted to experiencing personal difficulties with similar frequency, including being in serious debt (11% versus 10%), dealing with a personal addiction (13% versus 12%), and trying to find a few good friends (41% versus 40%). Christians admit to being overweight with greater frequency (26% of no-faith, compared with 41% of active-faith), while atheists and agnostics are more likely to feel stressed out (37% versus 26%).
In their interactions with others, the two groups also share common ground. Both audiences were equally likely to say they have discussed political, moral, and spiritual issues with others in the last month. In addition, about one-fifth of both active-faith and no-faith adults said they often try to persuade other people to change their views.
I liked one thing the director of the study said:
“Neither the 20 million no-faith adults nor the 58 million active-faith Christians are as internally consistent as those who write and speak on behalf of their groups make them out to be. Proponents of secularism suggest that rejecting faith is a simple and intelligent response to what we know today.
But then I didn’t much care for what immediately followed
Yet, most of the Americans who overtly reject faith harbor doubts about whether they are correct in doing so.
I’m not sure where this came from and I would have liked to know how many Christians also harbor doubts. Quite a few, I’d guess.
And his next remark annoyed me because he happily concludes his results show people who aren’t Christians are more selfish, without apparently giving a moment’s thought to the possible influence of the different demographics
Many of the most ardent critics of Christianity claim that compassion and generosity do not hinge on faith; yet those who divorce themselves from spiritual commitment are significantly less likely to help others.
Given the sample size and the evidently different demographics of their Christian and atheist samples I would like them to have been much more cautious in interpreting the results.
Comment by: Mike O
1That’s an interesting response to statistics. If only we could pick and choose which ones we like and which ones we don’t.
It seems that the thing that annoyed you wasn’t so much the method, but the findings. You seemed to like the parts that supported where you are at personally, but were annoyed by the things that seemed contrary to your own perspective. Why didn’t you simply find them “interesting” instead of “suspect?”
Here’s an example of something that probably annoyed you…
One of the things I hear philosophically here at ebay atheist is that atheists are just as generous (maybe more), just as moral (maybe more), just as “whatever” as Christians are, yet atheists manage to accomplish that without faith. Yet these statistics would seem to contradict that. It’s interesting that this study seems to reveal a divergance between philosophy and reality.
Hmmm … isn’t that the same rap Christians get? If we just lived the way we believed, the world would be a better place. And it’s true … Christians DON’T practice what we preach very well. And when we see it in Christians, we’re quick to call it “hypocricy.” What do we call it when we see it in the no-faith community? Bad analysis?
The last thing that I find interesting about Helen’s comments is that it’s the science that she’s rejecting. Everything was measured, regulated, and scientifically executed (at least, I believe it was … it’s what they do), yet she would prefer to change the study to get better results. That’s an interesting position coming from a community where science is king. I wonder what would happen if I wrote something criticizing the findings of a study done by atheists? I’d be crucified for choosing faith over science.
Whether we agree with the findings or not, the findings are the findings. But if you don’t think they’re right, don’t just reject them … do another study as Helen suggests …
That’s not a bad idea. But it’s a different study to measure a different relationship. And if the results “came out better,” would you stop there and say “I knew it!” If they came out bad again, would you keep going and say, “yeah, but we also need to look at [whatever]” … searching for the right test to produce the results you expect? I would hope the testing continues regardless of the findings, because that’s what science does … it questions what we “know.”
I believe this study had a very specific question it was trying to ask (aggregate, random sampling) and it did it well and it found scientifically-based results.
But then again, I liked the results :)
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
2Mike, I’m happy to admit that I would prefer some results to others :)
But please understand I’m a statistician by profession. I know that statistics need careful collection and careful interpretation. You need to compare like with like as much as possible in order to eliminate the possibility that differences are caused by something other than what you are trying to measure.
One of my main points is, don’t compare young unmarried male atheists with Christian grandmothers and then claim all the differences are due to differences in beliefs. I don’t believe they are for a minute.
You said that comparing young unmarried males with young unmarried males is “a different study to measure a different relationship”. That was just a starting point - really I’d compare all demographic groups covered in this study one by one - so imo it wouldn’t be a different study - it would be this one done correctly.
Plus I still think the sample was too small. And possibly skewed by factors like who is willing to do a phone survey. Again as a statistician by training (I’m an actuary - close enough - I took a lot of stats exams and analyzed data :)) I feel that I am somewhat qualified to have an opinion about the validity of statistical sampling and the analysis of the results.
Ok, your turn again Mike :)
Comment by: Stephan
3I agree with Helen somewhat. Look at another stat from the study:
If you have in mind that you are comparing men in their early twenties with men in their forties, this makes more sense. I’m more likely to be overweight than a single guy just out of college. I would not read this stat to say that Christians are fatter than atheists, but I think it says more about their methods and sample.
I think it would be interesting to cut this up a bit and see how similar demographics within their sample compare to each other.
While it would not surprise me to find that Christians are more generous than atheists in general, I also find it not at all surprising that people in their thirties and forties are more generous than men in their early twenties. I know I have a lot more money to give away now than I did with I was 23.
Comment by: Mike O
4I guess I was getting at the more philosophical question of “if this showed more pleasing results, would you have questioned it.” That answer should be yes, but somehow I just don’t htink people are wired that way … to question data that supports conclusions they have already reached.
It’s probably a question that can never be answered, but somehow I think that if the stat had showed that atheists were just as generous as Christians, the methods wouldn’t have been questioned. The reaction would likely have been, “see … and we do it without faith” rather than “yeah, but look at how they did their sampling.”
I’m not above it … in fact I’m probably doing it now. It’s so hard to be cynical when you don’t disagree with what you see.
I get what you’re saying. I do see value, however, in this study. Christians, as a group tend to be a different demographic. And comparing “Christians” to “no-faithers” as a whole does provide real statistics.
Comment by: Mike O
5I’m no statistician, though. I say that purely as my own thought on the subject.
Comment by: Siamang
6Well, Mike, I think the beauty of this conversation, and the reason you have conversations like this is that yes, we don’t tend to look critically at evidence that agrees with our own point of view.
If a survey had shown that Christians are more likely to commit crime than non-believers, I’d hope that a Christian poster here would post that the corrolation was stronger with economic and social issues than with belief/non-belief.
So hopefully the reason we’re having this discussion is so that our friends can point out the beams in our own eyes.
Comment by: Mike O
7Bingo.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
8Mike, I think we might disagree on how valid this study was.
However I do like the question you raise: “Would I have have been less critical, or at all critical, had I loved the results?” I hope I would have.
One thing I do appreciate is, I don’t feel like the Barna group tried to hide results they might not have liked.
I felt like some of the results didn’t fit what I’d experienced and so that did make me skeptical. But again, would I have been as skeptical had the results been better than I expected?
I hope so. Even though I might have smiled at the results before saying “ah but this was not really a fair comparison”.
What bothers me most is the implication that this study proves no-faith people are more selfish.
If I am supposed to be skeptical, shouldn’t the Barna group be skeptical even if the results appear to be what they like?
Comment by: Stephan
9I noticed something else telling about the survey:
This tells me that people who view religion with apathy are lumped in with skeptics. Apathy is not skepticism. People who view religion with apathy may be inclined to view other pursuits, such as voting, involvement in the community or giving to charity, with equal apathy. This could also skew the results.
I believe the results still have some validity, but probably not as much as Barna thinks.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
10Stephan that’s a good observation - thanks for sharing it.
Comment by: Karen
11Just for the record, Helen, my observation is that you bend over backwards to be scrupulously fair on these kinds of things. You tend to question and scrutinize results like these no matter which side they “favor” or “disfavor.” It’s a rare quality and I admire it very much in you.
I believe there was another study last year that showed something similar: Religious adherents of all stripes (not just Christians) donate more to charitable causes than do non-religious people.
Honestly, that made some sense to me, though the results were not very different when they excluded religious charities such as the person’s church or missionary cause. People who are in church weekly are typically getting a good dose of preaching about their obligation to help others - whether that’s framed in terms of evangelism, church-planting or doing good deeds like poverty alleviation and working toward international justice.
Those who aren’t getting that kind of week-in, week-out preaching may be just as concerned about helping others, but they don’t have constant reminders and opportunities to do it (i.e., the plate is passing by and adjacent pew-sitters are watching!).
That discrepancy goes double for the apathetic group that Stephen mentioned. Atheists and agnostics who are involved in politics and social causes are probably getting donation pitches in the mail, and thus they are more likely to be reminded about giving, while those who are apathetic may not be involved in much of anything outside of their daily concerns.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
12Thanks Karen!
Comment by: Laura M.
13Interesting study and great conversation. This is a perfect example of what I love about Off the Map. Such intelligent, articulate comments from everyone -from all sides of the issue.
For me it’s not difficult to compare two groups, one consisting of mostly young and independant individuals and the other of mostly older and married folks with families, and wonder why one group is more likely to be engaged in the community or giving to charity.
I know having children ( I have four) tends to make one become more socially conscious. More likely to be concerned about the present and future of others, not just about your own.
For me the real question here is why are the non-religious more likely to be young and unmarried? And male.
I’m sure the the religious would assume there is a correlation between type of person who is more likely to be unmarried and young (disengaged) and the type of person who is non-religious, probably making the leap that most of the non-religious are disengaged and apathetic, or at least more likely to be so because they are non-religious.
But correlation doesn’t automatically equate with cause. I am curious about what is the cause of younger males who are not married being the largest demographic group for the non-religious. I’d love to hear more of their reasons for believing and thinking what they do.
Comment by: Laura M.
14Wow, this link was just posted under a thread written by Helen on CatE about servent evangelism. It directly relates to this conversation in terms of the type of person more likely to be engaged in the community or giving to charity.
In this case the ‘giving’ would be of time since this link is about volunteerism in the United States. I think the leap to giving in terms of money, as well, wouldn’t be a big one.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm
Comment by: Laura M.
15Sorry, I forgot to mention I borrowed the link from Elaine’s response, post #7 under the entry :
72 Hours of Service
which was written by Helen.
Comment by: Laura M.
16This is the part of the study that interests me the most:
Comment by: Elaine
17How funny is that - I posted the link for the “volunteer stats” and Helen had posted Barna’s study.
I, like Helen, am always skeptical about stats. I do find them interesting - but still always wonder about the size of the study and who was included and excluded…that sort of thing. I also know human nature. Sometimes we see what we are “looking” for.
If I’m looking to buy a new Honda - suddenly I see them everywhere I go. What changed - more Hondas or is it me?
The USA population was 281 million in 2000 - is 1005 atheist/agnostics a large enough sampling to be statistically valid? I don’t know the answer - but it is my question. Helen, do you know?
And just to muddy the waters more, check out this site on giving and volunteering - http://www.independentsector.org/programs/research/GV01main.html
Their study was based on 4000 people. Is that a large enough sampling to make their findings valid? Unfortunately, I didn’t see anything that broke their stats down based on faith preferences.
Comment by: Siamang
18I think this might reflect a broader societial change. Since they say that these generational numbers have remained somewhat constant.
It seems to me on reading that data that young people are more likely to be atheist, not the other way around. It may just be that each generation (of the 4 surveyed) is less religious than its parents.
As far as unmarried… that, I think is societal too. Young people today are putting off marriage till later. More so the career-oriented and the college educated. Both of those corrolate positively with atheism.
As for the male question… I’m not sure on that. It may be social. Men might be more likely to answer in a potentially socially negative way to the question… I don’t think that women are inherantly more predisposed to or away from religion than men…. I could be wrong.
But I do think that sometimes men can be a little more out and proud about their atheism, while women might be a little more … let’s say nuanced about their skepticism.
Other thoughts on this? I think Hemant has commented on the unfavorable (to a straight single male) sex ratio at various atheism events.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
19Laura, thanks for bringing that link over here.
What Elaine posted illustrates my point very well: there are significant differences in giving between demographic groups.
The tricky part about analysis of data is that the results themselves don’t tell you about correlation and cause and effect. Those are the things you figure out other ways, then bring them to your analysis. You can’t answer the question “Is the difference between demographic groups in Elaine’s study caused by more of the younger people being no-faith and no-faith people volunteer less?” by looking at the data. The Barna study director might claim that - I suspect that would be simply an assertion based on his presupposition that Christianity makes people less selfish, handily supported by his results.
Elaine - it’s not just about sample size - the point is whether the sample represents the whole population well; a larger sample has more chance of doing that but could be skewed, say, by where the sample was found. I’m not convinced that telephone surveys will necessarily produce a good sample. Who even does those? ;-) (I always say no because they always seemed to take forever in the days I sometimes said yes.)
Siamang it does seem that successive generations are less religious than their parents based on all I hear.
I do also hear that women are more religious than men. There could be reasons for this: I hate stereotypes yet in my experience women in general are more drawn by the community aspect of religious groups than men and men in general tend to be more into hashing things out intellectually than women - and so such things may partly explain the difference.
I hasten to add that I know very intellectual women and very social men. But my experience is that they are less common than socially-oriented women and intellectually-oriented men. Or maybe that reflects where I’ve tended to hang out ;-)
Comment by: Elaine
20Helen, I agree totally with you. It is very important to know how they collected their information, what questions were asked, did they call both urban, rural, and suburban areas, where did they get their call list, etc.? Currently, I also do some freelance recruiting for market research focus groups and run into this whole statistical issue frequently. The client always thinks their statistical data applies precisely to every city/community. Like every community is an exact duplicate of the large group. NOT!
Comment by: Stephan
21It would be interesting to do a survey on what type of people actually agree to take phone surveys. Do these people really represent society at large? Maybe they’re a bunch of sad loners just sitting around waiting for the phone to ring. Maybe they’re evil pranksters who give false answers just to mess up the surveys. Maybe all of the “normal” people look at their caller ID and just let it go to voicemail. I know my caller ID regularly says, “Cincinnati, OH”, and I know from experience that is always a survey. If I don’t have time (which I never do) I don’t answer it.
Of course, the only people who would respond to a survey about who responds to a survey are people who would respond to a survey, so your results might not be representative of society at large. Wait… Isn’t that where I started?
Comment by: Keith
22Helen,
Thank you for posting on this topic. I originally came to off-the-map through Barna’s site. I first saw Jim Henderson’s book there, bought it, and ended up checking out off-the-map. This is not the first time I have heard someone explain that their personal experience is more reliable than Barna’s data, and many who have rejected his data have my full respect - yourself very much included.
Perhaps your (and others) current feelings in regard to Barna’s research will help you understand how some believers feel about scientific study. Many find it less reliable to trust a strangers’ research/study methods than to trust their own life experience. For atheists who bemoan that lack of belief in evolution across the country, here is at least one factor in that development. Why trust a stranger whose research could be off … especially when it draws unfavorable conclusions?
How inaccurate do you feel Barna’s study is? Do you feel that on average atheists give the same or more to charities as Christians? Or, like Karen pointing to preaching as the factor causing the difference, do you feel that the study is skewed because Christians have unfair giving advantages? Lastly, why does it matter if Christians give more than atheists?
As a young male, let me say that long before I was married and had kids I gave 10% or more of my gross pre-tax income to charities including my church. It’s not a competition, and it’s not like atheists have to do the same or they’ve lost something. Shouldn’t the fact that Christians give more to charity make us look even more deluded (in the eyes of an atheist) since we are giving away our money toward a false ideal?
Ya’ll have my respect, and the questions here are legit, not sarcastic. Thanks for being willing to dialogue so openly and fluently. You are appreciated.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
23Stephan - that’s just it: if you avoid phone surveys and so do I, who can possibly be left to give great answers to them? :-)
Seriously, if other people like doing phone surveys, I don’t have a problem with that. But I can imagine lots of people feeling they have a whole bunch of things they’d rather be doing.
Keith, I’m fine with believers rejecting any scientific study which makes as many assumptions on as unclear data as this one. Hopefully no-faith people will reject studies like that too!
I have reasons why I have problems with this study. I am not criticizing it just because Christians did the study.
My main issue is that this study failed to isolate the faith factor and compare like people with faith with like people without faith. So who knows what any differences they found are really due to: age? income? marital status?
It doesn’t matter if no-faith people give less and help less in certain ways, except a) the study director infers from that that no-faith people are more selfish than they claim to be; that lack of faith does make people more selfish and b) it’s not my experience that no-faith people are more selfish.
I thought of that too, that some of what Christians give to might be considered a total waste of money by atheists. But I think there are plenty of charities out there these days that atheists could give to without fear that they are funding anyone’s attempts to proselytize. So I don’t think that would be a reason for no-faith people not to give to charity. They just need to check who they’re planning to give money to. Like anyone should anyway, including believers.
Comment by: Matt Casper
24I’m Jim Henderson’s co-author (Jim & Casper Go to Church). He asked me for my thoughts. Here they are:
I am not surprised that more atheists admit to a lack of certainty: “Atheists and agnostics are also significantly less likely to say they are convinced they are right about things in life (38% versus 55%).” I think that’s healthy and it gives me hope.
Here’s where the study gets interesting: “They are less likely than active-faith Americans to be registered to vote (78% versus 89%), to volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit (20% versus 30%), to describe themselves as “active in the community” (41% versus 68%), and to personally help or serve a homeless or poor person (41% versus 61%).”
The voting thing bothers me: everyone should vote. And the apathy bothers me, too. But shouldn’t 100% of people of faith be willing to help a homeless person…? After all, that’s what Jesus would/did do. What’s going on there?
This part I thought was on the edge: “For their part, atheists and agnostics were more likely than were Christians to be focused on living a comfortable, balanced lifestyle (12% versus 4%) or on acquiring wealth (10% versus 2%).”
Come on: 2% of believers are focused on acquiring wealth? In what country? Not here, no way. Maybe it should be “admitting to focusing on acquiring wealth.” This is America, home of The Focus On Acquiring Wealth! Also, it goes against the next stat about debt. 12% want to get out… how will they do that? Maybe they could focus in acquiring wealth!
Comment by: Keith
25Helen,
Thank you for the response.
Agreed. You harbor no prejudice against Christians at all, and this quality is greatly appreciated. If my post implied that, it was unintentional.
I’m not sure I understand how the study failed to isolate the faith factor. Didn’t it consider faith/no-faith as the single breakdown for each question asked? Granted the same study could have been done comparing different ages, marital status, etc., but then it wouldn’t be solely focusing on the faith/no-faith factor, correct? Help me understand - I could be way off base ’cause it seems like I’m the only guy saying this.
I have zero problem disagreeing with the conclusions drawn from the data. The study gave no information on selfishness - only on giving to charity, voting, acquiring wealth, etc. It’s not my experience that people of no faith are more selfish either … but I think we can reject the conclusions without throwing out the data. It’s like someone saying they don’t trust science because someone drew a dishonest conclusion from a study. Reject the conclusion, not the science, right?
I can be slow on the uptake sometimes, so I appreciate the help. Thank you as always.
Comment by: Elaine
26Well, I just went to the Barna site to read the report. Did anyone else read the definition of “active faith” Christians?
Their definition for atheist and agnostic was:
I do consider myself an “active faith” Christian - have attended church all my life, on staff at a megachurch for 5 years, volunteer in leadership in my church, etc. - I rarely miss church and pray daily, BUT I don’t read my bible weekly. So, they would have disqualified me for the survey. Can I be the only Christian active in her church who doesn’t read her bible weekly?
So, all Christians who are like me - would have been disqualified. Would these “active faith” Christians consider me an inactive faith Christian?
And, why didn’t people like me count in the survey?
Comment by: Elaine
27Hey Matt,
When you said -
Doesn’t this also mean that (88% versus 96% were NOT focused on living a comfortable balanced lifestyle) and (90% vs. 98% were not focused on acquiring wealth) -
Did I do that right?
It would seem wanting a balanced lifestyle is a good thing - did I read that wrong?
I do have to agree with you to think only 2% of Christians are materially focused (acquiring wealth) seems unlikely in America. It could happen, but seems unlikely
Of course, knowing that only “active faith” Christians were included in the survey could explain the difference.
And the other question - how does this support their title, “Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians”?
Comment by: Siamang
28Now, that IS a good question. I know their lede talks about the books on the bestseller lists right now… but it seems to have nothing to do with what their survey showed.
Would it be fair to publish a survey with the exact same results and headline it “Christians Take Shots at Atheists”, as long as in the lede we talked about folks like Kirk Cameron and Chuck Colson?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
29The title goes with the intro which somewhat awkwardly then segueways (sp?) into the survey results, as follows:
Comment by: Laura M.
30Great questons overall Elaine, but I especially appreciated this, as I was wondering the EXACT same thing:
There is an attempt to segue into the survey as Helen points out, but it is a pretty pitiful attempt, IMO. I think as is typically the case, the title is just meant to be an attention- getter, so people will read the article.
I agree with Siamang,
Comment by: Laura M.
31Great point Keith, I agree. I think the data from this survey is relatively valid and has some interesting information for us to think over.
If you combine the information from the Barna study and the info from the studies Elaine gave us links to, I think the reasonable conclusions would be that young, unmarried males are less likely to be ’socially engaged in the community, and that young, unmarried males are more likely to be atheists.
When we look at the info on the surveys provided by Elaine, we clearly see that young, unmarried males are less likely to volunteer (across both the religious/faith demographic as well as the no-religious/non-faith demographic -since this factor wasn’t isolated we can reasonably assume both groups were included in the phone surveys).
When we look at the Barna study we see that the non-religious are more likely to be young, unmarried males. At this point it shouldn’t surprise us that the ‘non-religious’ are less socially engaged since we know from the volunteerism studies that young, unmarried males are less likely to volunteer.
So the common factor here within the groups in each study is the age, marital status and sex of the individuals that are socially disengaged -not a lack of theism/religion.
Comment by: Mike O
32I’m with you, Keith.
I had said this above,
but I liked the way you put it a lot better.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
33The Barna group’s findings are that their two different groups had different giving/helping habits.
The two groups were formed by separating faith and no-faith people. When they did this they created groups which had different demographic characteristics as well a difference in belief/non-belief.
Their unproved assertion, not their findings, is that the difference in faith between the two groups caused the difference in giving. They ignore the possibility that the difference in demographic may have contributed to or even entirely caused the difference in giving. Even though the study Elaine linked to shows that giving patterns do vary by demographic.
“No faith people give less” is not a finding. It’s an unproven assertion which overlooks what at least one other study has shown about the effect of demographic. It fits the data but that doesn’t mean it’s true.
Keith and Mike, suppose you watched the weather for a month and it was sunny every Monday and rained every Tuesday.
Those are your findings.
If you said “the day of the week must determine the weather - obviously Monday makes it sunny and Tuesday makes it rain” that would be an unproven assertion about what causes the weather. Your assertion fits the data but that doesn’t make it true.
Comment by: Mike O
34OK. But to say “It was sunny every Monday and rained every tuesday” would be fair. That’s why I liked how Keith put it better … reject the conclusion, not the science.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
35Mike - yes, I agree; but there’s a fine line in this situation that if you say “the no-faith group was more selfish than the faith group” you might reinforce stereotypes even though it’s not proved that the amount of faith was the cause of the level of giving.
No-one would think the day of the week caused the weather; they would just smile at the coincidence.
In other words, noting the correlation between days of the week and weather doesn’t reinforce any stereotypes which are unproven, whereas noting the correlation between giving levels and faith in this particular study could well do that.
If I went to a meeting and said “All the Christians I met were jerks and all the atheists were really nice” then I could say I was simply reporting a finding. But people may also read that as me implying a cause and effect relationship between character and faith, if I didn’t put any disclaimers indicating the sample of people I met at the meeting was not representative of all Christians and atheists I’ve met - such as “I’ve met lots of nice Christians and less-nice atheists elsewhere; I’m not sure why it worked out this way in this particular meeting”.
I would be telling the truth if I didn’t include any disclaimers. But at the same time I might be pushing people towards untrue conclusions. Either intentionally or inadvertently.
Comment by: Mike O
36I’m not sure I get your point. Are you saying it would be better to not see the stats at all? So what if people draw conclusions, rightly or wrongly. That’s not the responsibility of the statistician. For example, barna never said anything about non-faith group being more selfish, you did. But even if you thought the data implied that (and maybe it does), aren’t the numbers at least informational? Weren’t you at some level surprised at what you read? Findings like this should cause you to check to see if what they found is actually true, which you are. But Barna never drew the conclusions - at least about “selfishness.” Here’s the Barna quote:
It’s just data.
Comment by: Mike O
37Let me clarify this …
What I so inelegantly meant to say was that all stats drive people to conclusions. Otherwise what’s the point? The data is the actual results of their actual survey. They go on to tell their methodology, which may or may not be valid, but at least they said what it was. Now, draw your own conclusions on the data (which we all seem to be doing), and make that data useful.
Comment by: Karen
38Helen will correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it is absolutely the responsibility of a polling group to collect and compare the data in a manner so as to not lead to false conclusions.
I’m not sure that was done in this instance. It seems likely that they didn’t compare apples to apples, and obviously they didn’t give enough data for others to do that (i.e., breaking down respondents by age and other demographics).
Their abstract started out with a sensationalist headline: “Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians”? that had nothing to do with their findings. Then, though they don’t use the word “selfish” specifically, they certainly imply it with language like “paltry” and “failed to give.” That seems rather loaded to me.
Comment by: Stephan
39This is why I would like them to break the data down more, as often is done in studies like this. Let’s see charts showing how 20-30 year old people of faith compare to 20-30 year old agnostics/atheists. Same for 30-40 year olds, and so on. This would give you enough data to reach a more supportable conclusion. As it is, their data leaves big holes where conclusions could be very misleading. As Karen stated, this is the responsibility of a polling group. If the data is inconclusive they need to do the work to fill in the holes, or just throw the data away as worthless.
As Mark Twain said, there are three kinds of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics.
Comment by: Mike O
40How to get the right answer in 3 easy steps:
1) Rephrase the question
2) If you still don’t get the answer you need, ask the question of someone else.
3) Repeat as needed
If you ask a statistician “What’s 1 plus 1?” the correct response is “What do you need it to be?”
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
41Stephan, that’s really all I’m asking for too - a breakdown of the data by demographic.
Mike, the conclusion I’ve been alluding to is way down the page - you maybe didn’t see it. Go to the Perspectives on the findings” section and you will see:
This is the statement I’ve been objecting to.
And I’ll just ignore your comment about statisticians (not because it’s invalid data but, some data is best not responded to, in my experience) ;-)
Comment by: Keith
42Good conversation guys. Helen, you originally stated:
Much of the dialogue so far has focused on the possibility that it is unfair to compare the giving of no-faith to faith because the no-faith group is represented by more single young males than the faith group. Perhaps this is a good point. But why has this nugget been ignored in those demographic issues:
Those in the no-faith group surveyed earn more money than those in the faith group. That this evidence was twisted to suggest that the no-faith group would have less money to give (due to the student loans) suggests, IMO, that some of us are trying to ignore the data. Of those surveyed, the no-faith group made more money and gave less. Of those surveyed, the no-faith group made more money and gave less even when the faith group’s contributions to churches were removed from the data. I don’t think this should bother anyone who sees themself in the no-faith group, but why keep suggesting that this study is off?
Many of us would like the study to have been more specific and to offer more break-downs. But does anyone think this study is incorrect? Is the study wrong? Do those of the no-faith group give more than or the same as those of the faith group? If so, bring the evidence. If not, why are we trying to discredit this study?
And as always, no matter what any study says about any demographic, there will always be many exceptions on both sides of whatever line is drawn. Thanks as always, guys.
Comment by: Mike O
43Sorry, Helen. I didn’t mean anything by it .. it’s human nature. It was a joke.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
44Keith, I’m not trying to discredit the study but rather, everything about the study which implies faith or no-faith drives decisions about givings more than demographics.
You make a good point about wealth. And I think I commented somewhere (or maybe it wasn’t on here) that I don’t see wealth as strongly correlated with giving percentage-wise. It seems to me more that people either like to give or they don’t. Having more money won’t change the character of people who don’t give - it will only help those members of the no-money group who really wanted to give yet felt they couldn’t spare the money.
Which may be somewhat affected by faith because only people with faith would give away money they needed, believing God would make up the shortfall.
But overall I’d expect age/settled lifestyle to be a more decisive factor in how much people give than wealth in absolute terms.
None of this is addressed by the numbers the Barna Group collected.
That’s my problem with the study.
Keith, it’s a fact that you comment here sometimes. If anyone tried to use that fact to imply you aren’t a real Christian, they’d are going beyond the findings into speculation, right?
Or, what about if you weren’t allowed car insurance because your neighbor kept crashing his car and someone had taken that fact and concluded “No-one on your street can drive safely”?
No-one is denying the facts, only the way they are being used to support certain beliefs about faith and no-faith people.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
45Mike, I know…not to worry. :)
Comment by: Keith
46Helen, thanks for the response. As always, I greatly respect your thought. I know that you object primarily to the suggestiont that those of no-faith help others less than those of faith. I agree that this conclusion was not conclusively shown by the study. I also agree that you’re not trying to discredit the study.
You gave this illustration:
I agree that that conclusion would be unfair. Also, that withholding car insurance for that reason would be unfair. However, wouldn’t it be fair for someone to say that those who live on street A (where we crash more than twice as much as street B) crash more than those who live on street B. That would be a fair conclusion, right? I would be an exception, but the statement wasn’t about me, it was about my street.
You are undoubtedly unselfish, generous, and beyond patient - as are Siamang, Karen, and many others who would likely be considered no-faith by this study. The study only suggests whether I’m the exception or the rule to my street … or whether you are the exception or the rule to your group. Which brings me to the same question I asked at the end of my last post:
Comment by: Keith
47Sorry about the word discredit being used in the last question … I should have reworded instead of quoting it. The last sentence should read, “If not, why do we feel it should be changed?”
I am sorry for reusing that word.
Comment by: Stephan
48Helen said:
Slightly off topic, but something like this actually happens. When we were shopping for a house a few years ago we mentioned one possible location and were told by our auto insurance agent that rates in that suburb were high because of a high frequency of accidents and uninsured drivers. It’s also a sad fact that auto insurance rates are higher near military bases because of driving habits and lack of insurance by military personnel.
It sounds like what you’re objecting to in this study is the generalization that all agnostics/atheists are selfish and less apt to help others. You don’t want to be lumped in with those who may share your beliefs about a deity but not your convictions about helping others. But generalizations are what studies like this are designed to make.
The specific passage you mentioned was:
Based on the study and the discussion here I would conclude this this may be true as a generalization, but that does not mean it is true of everyone in that group. If that is the case, don’t argue with the study. Argue with other agnostics and atheists to be more generous.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
49Keith wrote:
I would say that’s an example of stating information in a misleading way, unless there’s a reason to think that the street people live on is actually related to why they crash more.
If it isn’t why bring it up? Or at least say “this is interesting but it doesn’t mean anything because there’s inherent no reason why people on the other street should crash more”.
Stephan I’m fine with atheists and agnostics encouraging each other to be more generous. Since I question whether the generalization of them being less generous is correct I hope that Christians also are encouraging each other to be more generous (I think some are, as are some no-faith people).
Comment by: Laura M.
50That is precisely the problem we are having with this study guys!
COME ON, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION HERE !
This study shows that a certain group, comprised largely of unmarried males, are less likely to give, and from that the study, and folks like some of you guys here, are extrapolating that people of non-faith are less likely to give. Completely unfair and very possibly inaccurate, since the study didn’t break down into equal sized groups of like demographics as to age, sex, and marital status.
This is about statistics (numbers and scientific methods of collecting data). Not about disagreeing with the results. Those claiming more from the study than it actually shows are technically the ones disagreeing with the results.
I think that it is very telling that even with Elaine’s links, some of you are continuing to insist that the data shows something that it doesn’t show. This tells more about you than it does about the data. I think some Christian’s quick assumptions to believe the worst about people of non-faith, even with no actual evidence is what this Barna study and subsequent conversation really shows.
Perhaps you guys should be arguing with other males that they should become more socially engaged and generous, and leave agnostics and atheists out of this.
Comment by: Keith
51Laura you suggest that I am extrapolating by taking the results of a study of those with faith and no-faith and discussing those results in terms of faith and no-faith. Yet you take that same study - which by your own admission did not break down into demographics like age & sex - and use it to call males to be more socially engaged and generous. Who exactly is extrapolating unfairly?
Out of our desire to avoid false blaming of atheists (a good desire), we are blaming young males. Young males make an easy target, no? Who is extrapolating unfairly?
I’m so far from perfect, it ain’t funny. But if you think I’m hear because I think poorly of atheists, you couldn’t be more wrong. I greatly admire Helen, Eliza, Karen, Tx, David S., and many other atheists. I have learned more from Siamang than many people I have met face to face. I am not posting because I think the worst of atheists, but because I want the best for atheists. I want Christians to listen to atheists, in particular atheists like Helen and Siamang. And reactions like this by atheists to articles like this confirm to many believers what they inaccurately suspect about atheists: they are unwilling to admit weakness.
I’m not saying this response to the article should shut believers’ ears to atheists, just guessing that it would.
Thanks as always, guys. If I’m way off, it is with sincere but deluded intentions.
Comment by: Elaine
52Just checking in. This has certainly stimulated a lot of conversation.
For me, the fact that the actual numbers/demographics are not provided make this study less valuable for me. For my purposes, there is too much missing information. It does not allow me to reach my own conclusions. This is a big part of the reason I provided links to other surveys. I went searching to see if I could find other studies to support their numbers.
Yes, the numbers are the numbers. I’m not saying the numbers aren’t true. What I need to know is where did they find the people they talked to? Who was excluded from the study? (I’ve spent my life working with actuaries, accountants, engineers, lawyers, and now, market research. I just don’t accept numbers/percents and other people’s findings unless I have more information on how the study was conducted.)
I would really have liked to have seen the “questions” that were asked. How you phrase a question is critical to how people respond.
And if in the end, their conclusions are accurate - what does that mean for the rest of us - especially those of us who would have been excluded? (that would be me - the “non-active faith Christian”)
Comment by: Karen
53I don’t think anybody’s intending to “blame young males.” They have been shown in lots of studies (independent of this one) to be less likely to vote and less likely to give charitable contributions - whether they are actively religious or not.
It makes all kinds of sense, when you think about it. Young people, perhaps particularly males, are focused on completing their education and gaining traction in their careers. They are likely to be highly focused on their jobs and on saving money so they can marry, buy homes and start families.
Data has always shown that once people settle down into homeownership, hit their stride in their careers and have children, they become much more invested in community interests, politics and charitable causes. They even are much more likely to go back to church or start attending for the first time, probably because they think their kids need moral and spiritual grounding.
Comment by: Laura M.
54We are arguing with genralizations people will draw as a result of the study because:
As Helen mentioned, the sample used was small. Because it was so small, it shouldn’t be considered representative. If it is not representative, then we shouldn’t generalize from it.
Or does any Christian reading this believe it would be fair of athiests to draw negative conclusions about most( generalizations refer to most members of a group) people of faith based on a study that only included approx. 90 people of faith, and compared their behavior to a much larger sampling of about 900 non-faith (10 times as many) individuals?
People of non-faith make up only approx. 9% of the population in the U.S. If this study held to those averages, those are the numbers we would be talking about.
But we don’t know how many people of faith were compared to those of no-faith because the study doesn’t include enough data.
In scientific studies, you limit the variables as much as possible and then compare like to like so that conclusions can then be drawn.The idea is to isolate the one variable you are testing for. When there are so many variables up in the air, the study is not scientific, won’t get published in peer reviewed journals, and won’t be considered useful for drawing any conclusions, and for good reason.
Actually, I wasn’t calling males to be anything. It was a play on words. I was taking this comment and turning it on it’s ear:
This study did say that the non-faith population, at least those involved in this study, was comprised primarily of young males. That means those of non-faith involved in this study, you remember…the ones less likely to be socially engaged or giving to charity(?), were mostly young males. I read that here, in this Barna study. You know, the one we’ve been discussing. If you don’t like the generalization, don’t blame me, blame the study. I’m only referring to the data that this study gives us.
Interestingly enough, the links from Elaine to other studies show similar data. Therefor, there is more data here to support the conclusion that young males are less involved and giving, as a generalization of course . We’re certainly not talking about all males here. I’m sure there are some males who are very generous, after all.
I mean males make up approximately 50% of the poulation, not only 9% like people of non-faith. So these studies(Elaine’s) compared one segment of the population to the other segment (of equal proportion), and found the same results.
Across more than one study.
And these results conformed to similar results in the Barna study. Males were less giving and socially engaged.
There is much more data here about the behavior of young males, when looking at all of these studies, than there is about people of non-faith. If the extrapolations about young males are unfair, then the ones being made here about people of non-faith must be, since they are being made on much less data.
THAT IS PRECISELY MY POINT !
I didn’t say the study didn’t talk about any differences between sex/gender of participants. As Karen pointed out, it clearly did. We can only guess that the comparison was between approx equal percentages as regards male/female breakdown, since this is the proportion in the overall population. If the percentages of male to female ratio in the original pool weren’t close to equal, that would be one more example of how conclusions from this study weren’t valid due to lack of scientific isolation of variables.
To draw conclusions about sex, which this study did, one would need to compare like to like. In this case equal/almost equal numbers of each. That would also apply to conclusions or generalizations about faith people compared to non-faith people. Compare like to like by using equal percentages- 50/50. And do it in large enough numbers so that it can be considered representive.
Comment by: Laura M.
55Atheists make a much easier target.
And BTW, I am the mother of two young males, so what reason would I have for singling them out as a target?
Do the writers of this article or those commenting here, like you Keith, happen to be the parent of young people of no faith?
Comment by: Laura M.
56By “writers of this article” I meant the writers of the original article, on the Barna website, which introduces this study and draws conclusions from it.
Comment by: Laura M.
57I’m curious what ‘believers’ would think that atheists reactions would be to ‘believers’ responses ,given here by some to this Barna article?
Should we smile and say “yes, go ahead and draw innacurrate conclusions from poorly done studies that’s just fine with us,” ? Failing to speak out about issues like this, now that would be an admission of weakness.
Does it occur to ‘believers’ that responses like some of those given here shut atheists’ ears to believers? I have been a visitor to Off-the-Map for about 6 months, and the responses of some on this thread have been the most close-minded I have read since I began visiting here.
These comments imply that the conclusions drawn by the Barna study are accurate ones. But the data from this study simply leaves no one able to come to that conclusion on the basis of such poor data.
Since these conclusions can’t be reasonably drawn from this study, it only leaves one to wonder where precisely these conclusions are coming from.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
58Hey Laura,
We’re all still learning about each other. I hope you won’t get discouraged and leave. I really appreciate your honesty and your thoughtful comments on here and some of our other blogs.
Comment by: Keith
59Agreed. Thanks for your comments, Laura.
Comment by: Keith
60Agreed. Atheists are an easier target. Please note that I was suggesting males are an easy target, not an easier target.
I am not the parent of young people of no faith, but like you I am a parent of two young males with a third son due in July.
Comment by: Keith
61Laura,
You help me know what atheist reactions are to my thoughts, because you post and I am able to listen to you. I care about what your response is and that of other atheists. I don’t think you should smile if your upset, and I don’t think you should be quiet if you feel conviction to speak up. Thank you for your honest reactions to my words.
You and others feel that the study is worthless because it was done improperly. I’m done arguing that point … clearly it is useless, because it does not provide common ground for discussion like I thought it might.
I regret that our conversation has turned somewhat personal. My comments say more about me than they do about the study. The responses by some (of which I am surely a part) are the most close-minded you have read on off-the-map. You wonder where these conclusions are coming from.
I am trying to learn from this. My recent conversation with Carr and this conversation in this thread have both gone the opposite of what I hoped. Something is wrong with the way I post or the way I think, because I seem to be hurting more than I am helping.
I heard the same reaction from atheists that I hear from Christians whenever I have discussed data or tried to quantify a problem. Blame the young. Blame the men. We are often the problem. I am disappointed that one of these two things are true: 1) Prejudice against young men is tremendously prevalent … 2) Young men really are signficantly worse than the other demographics and we are the only ones who don’t know it.
I sincerely appreciate our conversation, and regret that I kept beating the dead horse as long as I did. This study is not a valid tool to aid in discussion, and I drop my contention that it was. Thank you all.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
62Keith wrote:
Keith, sometimes a person can do everything right and not see the results he/she hoped for. In fact whenever other people are involved that might happen because we can’t control other peoples’ reactions. And when there’s a history of problematic relationship between two groups, it becomes even more challenging to move beyond that.
I think the point about ‘blame young unmarried men’ is: the study gives as much reason to blame young unmarried men as it does to blame no-faith people. What’s frustrating is that the researchers didn’t notice that. Why didn’t they? That is the question Laura is asking and I think it’s a good one.
Anyway perhaps you’re done with talking about the study, which is fine.
Keith I’ve interacted with you for a while; I appreciate the respect you’ve shown me and other atheists here.
I hope you won’t give up the challenge of connecting in meaningful ways with people who don’t share your beliefs. If you don’t, who knows - maybe you will have a conversation next week which is as encouraging as some recent ones have been discouraging. Maybe it will even take place here! (That would be neat)
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
63Elaine, by the way - I’m interested that you don’t read your Bible every week. I was supposed to read it every day when I was a Christian. The Christians you hang out with must have different expectations than the ones I hung out with!
Comment by: Mike O
64Hey, Keith, don’t let it get you down, man! I’ve been here for almost a year now, and I’ve learned the most from atheistic reactions to things I’ve said. I’ve learned a lot about myself, my beliefs and why I hold them because of reactions I’ve gotten here.
My beliefs haven’t actually changed that much … I think I’ve gotten more compassionate and more otherly-minded. But I still hold to my core beliefs. But like you, it makes me wonder why there is such a disconnect between Christians an non-Christians. Sometimes it seems like no matter what I say, it will be wrong. And to that I say, OK … but they need to understand me, too.
There have been times I said things that made perfect sense to me and were meant as encouraging or at least explanatory, and they spun really wrong.
That doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with me or them … it just means there’s places where our perspectives clash.
We don’t have to agree on everything. To me the goal is not to agree, for at some level that would result in some level of combativeness (kind of like I’m seeing here … someone getting upset and you assuming because they don’t see it your way, you must be wrong.) Maybe you are wrong, I don’t know but I agree with you on this stuff. But we’re looking at it from the same angle.
The point isn’t that people disagree on things like this, it’s that we understand why we disagree. At least that’s the way I see it here.
I am a white, conservative evangelical male. I am many of the things that are often railed against here. And sometimes it gets to me. But disagreement sheds so much light on where “the other guy” is at. Don’t let disagreement get you down. Learn from it. And by “learn from it,” I don’t necessarily mean you have to change your position (unless you see that it is wrong, which will happen!) See it, try to understand it, then move it out of the way so it doesn’t stand in the way of a continuing relationship with others.
And if you find you’re wrong, then by all means change … you probably are wrong somewhere. And I would hope atheists would do the same. It’s the only way to keep a level playing field.
Also, we’re in the minority here, wich is not something I’m used to. And maybe that, in itself is helpful. It has been mentioned that atheists are an easy target. Well, let me tell ya … here, it’s us, baby. And I am learning SO much by simply being in the minority … maybe it’s helping me understand what it’s like to be in a real minority in the real world.
By the way, I have one son, white male raised Christian. Generosity is something we’ve had to be taught … it didn’t come natural to me. I can’t speak for him … he’s 18.
Comment by: Keith
65Thank you, Helen and Mike.
Comment by: Stephan
66I want to add onto something said above…
I have noticed this myself, that atheists are very loathe to admit to any weakness in their ranks. Maybe this is an over-reaction to having Christians constantly point out where atheists are wrong, but it appears out of proportion.
While this study’s results are far from conclusive due to the weaknesses we have all pointed out, I think there is still some validity to it. It is likely, for reason Karen pointed out, that religious people are trained to give, whether it comes from correct motives or not (guilt, pressure, etc.). The overwhelming reaction by atheists here has been to reject any conclusions based on this report, and I think that goes a little too far.
Is there any harm in accepting the results, with the caveat that it is not complete or conclusive.
Comment by: Elaine
67Helen to answer your question -
Yes yes. It is true. By most standards, I do not read my bible enough.
When I was growing up, my church required me to read my bible a lot - had to memorize scripture, recite it, that sort of thing.
What it gave me was a good foundation in reading the bible and knowing scripture, but not in understanding. The understanding came as an adult learning from teachers, small groups, and reading other books.
It is interesting to me in times of joy and stress, the scripture I learned as a child still comforts and directs me.
When I am involved in a small group studying the bible, I get a lot out of it. And, I am trying to learn the discipline of Phyllis Tickle’s “Divine Hours of Prayer”. AND, I am not there yet. But, I persevere.
For me, love God and love others - that is what I got from reading the Bible. If I can get that right, then I am on a good path.
Hmmm, I don’t think as an adult anyone has required or asked me to be reading it every day. I appreciate anyone who has the discipline to it. It is a good thing and I am striving to do be more disciplined.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
68Stephan wrote:
I’m happy to accept the result that two different demographic groups are similar in some ways and different in others.
If someone does a study of people similar except for faith/no-faith I will be curious about their results.
This isn’t that study because demographic differences muddy the water too much to see anything clearly about faith/no-faith.
And if you think I’m saying that just because I am in the no-faith group, so be it. I’ve already said it’s because I worked professionally with statistics and studied them a lot, so I know what is and isn’t a good statistical study.
Elaine, thanks for sharing - I hope I didn’t come across as saying “Hey you should read your Bible more!” It was intended more as an observation that I was in Christian circles where I was encouraged to read it every day.
Comment by: Mike O
69I try to read it every day, but rarely do it every day. It’s not an ‘obligation’ thing, either. I just find that my thinking is clearer and I seem to be more grounded when I’m consistent. I don’t drift quite so much.
Comment by: Laura M.
70Keith,
Thank you for your kind words in your recent comment above. I’m sorry that you regret anything that you have said here, as I see no reason for you to feel that way.
I love how beautifully you said this , I feel the same way about you and others who I have differences with:
I know from how and what you write that you come here with an honest desire to talk and to listen, not to hurt others or ‘beat dead horses’ .
You haven’t hurt me with your honesty, only left me frustrated a bit. It does seem that I may have hurt you though. You are right that I did make the ‘conversation somewhat personal’, and I’m sorry for that.
As Mike O. pointed out, “don’t let it get you down”. This really isn’t about trying to change minds, but opening minds to another perspective. And, as Mike said, you and he are the minority here. Coming back again and again to join this ‘conversation’, in the honest way that you and Mike O. do, takes loads of integrity. Please don’t doubt for a second how much I admire and appreciate you guys for doing that.
Just as Helen said,
Comment by: Laura M.
71Thank you Helen :-)
It’s so nice to hear, I should remember to say it more often to others!
Comment by: Keith
72Thank you, Laura. I really appreciate you and your words.