New study on atheists

[ghostexorcist]

Prof. Jerome P. Baggett, a theology teacher from Berkley, is conducting a study on atheists. I first learned about it from watching a video by the YouTuber ZomGitscriss. Participants are required to fill out a questionnaire, a survey, and a consent form. All three were originally available in a single file in ZomGitscriss' video description, but it became corrupted for some reason. She has posted them to Google Docs. You can access them here:

* The questionnaire - https://docs.google.com/document/pub...4UkxRBb7GXFK5Y (The same document is tripled for some reason. Just copy it up to the point where it is says "Thanks again. Your perspective is very important to us.")

* The survey - https://docs.google.com/document/pub...pZSqy81L4iTYCQ (the survey didn't transfer to Google Docs very good as the lines you mark with an "X" got jumbled up.)

* The consent form - https://docs.google.com/document/pub...I4FFYdkwrm0vdo

Once you are done, email the finished documents to jbaggett@jstb.edu. I've already sent in my responses. He was nice enough to write me back and thank me for taking time to help out with the study.

[David Jamieson]

A theology teacher.... hmmn, I don't think there will be any confirmation bias there whatsoever do you?

[ghostexorcist]

Other atheists I've told about this study have had the same concerns. I'm holding my judgement until the research comes out. There have been numerous video responses on YouTube. Aron Ra (a noted atheist activist) posted his response here. I've posted my responses here and here (split due to size limitations). Even if the study turns out to be a dud, I still have my thoughts written down. I can give what I've written to curious family members who want to know more about my worldview.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think that, for many believers, they have a hard time understanding atheists.
"Militant" atheists ( for lac of a better word) like Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, etc have made it even more difficult.
I know quite a few atheists and I have the previlage of calling some friends and they are great people BUT I do think that because of a very vocal minority, atheists get a bad rap by believers.
Sure some are very mean-spirited, closed minded, arrogant and, well, not very smart BUT so are a lot of believers, LOL !

These may simply be a study trying to bridge that gap and I know that many believers truly want to understand why some people are atheist.

[ghostexorcist]

[...]

These may simply be a study trying to bridge that gap and I know that many believers truly want to understand why some people are atheist.

That's the way I am looking at the study.

[Drake]

A theology teacher.... hmmn, I don't think there will be any confirmation bias there whatsoever do you?

Not necessarily. If he is a professor, one might think he would place the research before the bias, or at least acknowledge it during his paper. During my masters and doctorate studies, we were told not to so much shut down your biases (which is impossible), but to acknowledge them and carefully review your findings to see if you had crossed any lines inadvertently. Peer review, a standard amongst academic journals, is also very helpful for this.

Let's see what he comes up with before assuming confirmation bias. That's like confirmation bias of confirmation bias!

[David Jamieson]

well, I guess it will help people understand that they aren't atheists and actually anti-theists or anti-religious...which is what most of the flavour of "atheism" is these days anyway.

I wouldn't say Hitchens was exclusively an atheist so much as he was an anti-theist. He made the latter stronger than the former.

Dawkins more or less fits the same pair of pants as well i many ways.

[sanjuro_ronin]

well, I guess it will help people understand that they aren't atheists and actually anti-theists or anti-religious...which is what most of the flavour of "atheism" is these days anyway.

I wouldn't say Hitchens was exclusively an atheist so much as he was an anti-theist. He made the latter stronger than the former.

Dawkins more or less fits the same pair of pants as well i many ways.

Yes, I would agree with that term, anti-theist.

[Syn7]

Not necessarily. If he is a professor, one might think he would place the research before the bias, or at least acknowledge it during his paper. During my masters and doctorate studies, we were told not to so much shut down your biases (which is impossible), but to acknowledge them and carefully review your findings to see if you had crossed any lines inadvertently. Peer review, a standard amongst academic journals, is also very helpful for this.

Let's see what he comes up with before assuming confirmation bias. That's like confirmation bias of confirmation bias!

Totally agree. To assume bias in the final data is a huge bias itself.

[David Jamieson]

Totally agree. To assume bias in the final data is a huge bias itself.

The assumption isn't being drawn from the fact there is a study. The assumption is formed because the study is being done from a theological perspective.

Sometimes, it is not unwise to make such assumptions when information can be extrapolated from the event.

An uninterested and non-invested source for the study would not invite such an assumption.

[Scott R. Brown]

An uninterested and non-invested source for the study would not invite such an assumption.

Where would one find such a person?

Everyone has a personal world view that presupposes bias, it is inescapable.

I know, look for someone with lesser bias, but the determination of who has a lesser bias is also formed from a biased perspective. It is once again, inescapable.

[Drake]

The assumption isn't being drawn from the fact there is a study. The assumption is formed because the study is being done from a theological perspective.

Sometimes, it is not unwise to make such assumptions when information can be extrapolated from the event.

An uninterested and non-invested source for the study would not invite such an assumption.

I didn't read the survey. Did you? Just because a research project is being done by a religious person doesn't mean there must be bias. That's an assumption. That's like assuming a religious quantum computing scientist will attribute decoherence to "the devil's trickery"

[Syn7]

The assumption isn't being drawn from the fact there is a study. The assumption is formed because the study is being done from a theological perspective.

You assume he cannot form an less biased study because of his profession? I say less biased instead of non biased because non biased does not exist. We all have our own perspectives, but it is possible to look outside your own perspective. It is also possible to study many perspectives in order to eliminate bias from a study, never all, but you do the best you can. Because the man is a theology professor is not enough info to assume he cannot do this.

Sometimes, it is not unwise to make such assumptions when information can be extrapolated from the event.

Yeah, there is a word for that, it's called bias. ironic since that is the word you originally chose to use.

An uninterested and non-invested source for the study would not invite such an assumption.

We all have some bias, interested or not. Why can't you just admit it was a short sighted comment? I've never seen you admit fault, this concerns me.