While I posted the below two years ago, I think it fits in perfectly with recent posts by Tal Bachman and responses, especially by Brother of Jerry, about recent predictions by Pew concerning the growth of religion in the universe. While Pew's research involves predictions and while things could change, the below article gives some pretty good reasons why Pew's research might well be on the mark.

Also, while I may be flamed for saying this, I don't believe that there is a mass exodus from Mormonism going on now, despite the LDS church's most recent decision regarding the children of homosexual parents. There is an exodus of people leaving the LDS faith, to be sure, but it isn't a mass exodus, especially in the Mormon corridor states of Utah, Arizona, and Idaho; rather, it is a small, continuous stream of educated Mormons who are questioning the basis of their faith and who are not finding satisfactory answers inside the church.

https://medium.com/editors-picks/adfa0d026a7e

From the article:

"“A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger, in a passage that might have been referring to climate change denial—the persistent rejection, on the part of so many Americans today, of what we know about global warming and its human causes. But it was too early for that—this was the 1950s—and Festinger was actually describing a famous case study in psychology.

Festinger and several of his colleagues had infiltrated the Seekers, a small Chicago-area cult whose members thought they were communicating with aliens—including one, “Sananda,” who they believed was the astral incarnation of Jesus Christ. The group was led by Dorothy Martin, a Dianetics devotee who transcribed the interstellar messages through automatic writing.

Through her, the aliens had given the precise date of an Earth-rending cataclysm: December 21, 1954. Some of Martin’s followers quit their jobs and sold their property, expecting to be rescued by a flying saucer when the continent split asunder and a new sea swallowed much of the United States. The disciples even went so far as to remove brassieres and rip zippers out of their trousers—the metal, they believed, would pose a danger on the spacecraft.

Festinger and his team were with the cult when the prophecy failed. First, the “boys upstairs” (as the aliens were sometimes called) did not show up and rescue the Seekers. Then December 21 arrived without incident. It was the moment Festinger had been waiting for: How would people so emotionally invested in a belief system react, now that it had been soundly refuted?

At first, the group struggled for an explanation. But then rationalization set in. A new message arrived, announcing that they’d all been spared at the last minute. Festinger summarized the extraterrestrials’ new pronouncement: “The little group, sitting all night long, had spread so much light that God had saved the world from destruction.” Their willingness to believe in the prophecy had saved Earth from the prophecy!

From that day forward, the Seekers, previously shy of the press and indifferent toward evangelizing, began to proselytize. “Their sense of urgency was enormous,” wrote Festinger. The devastation of all they had believed had made them even more certain of their beliefs.

IN THE ANNALS OF DENIAL, it doesn’t get much more extreme than the Seekers. They lost their jobs, the press mocked them, and there were efforts to keep them away from impressionable young minds. But while Martin’s space cult might lie at the far end of the spectrum of human self-delusion, there’s plenty to go around. And since Festinger’s day, an array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called “motivated reasoning” helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, “death panels,” the birthplace and religion of the president (PDF), and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts."

One of the things that has struck me reading the ex-Mormon sites is the belief among many that the church leaders know that they are lying to their flock and continue to lie anyway for their own personal gain. The article at the link provided above suggests that the situation may be more complicated, and my personal observations of both myself and others would tend to bear that out. If the world doesn't fit our belief systems, then we will do everything in our power to skew the facts towards our point of view, whatever that point of view may be.

First, if you're dealing in "belief" with regard to science, you've missed the point entirely.

Second, challenging the Pew projections had nothing to do with being stubborn or refusing to accept valid data -- it had to do with the simple fact that the Pew projections ignored their own data, were changed with no new data from one of their earlier projections, and that their projections (as they themselves admit) have been "spectacularly wrong." There are valid, scientifically factual reasons to not give their projections credence.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First, if you're dealing in "belief" with regard
> to science, you've missed the point entirely.

No, because people react to what they believe to be true, not necessarily what is actually true.
>
> Second, challenging the Pew projections had
> nothing to do with being stubborn or refusing to
> accept valid data -- it had to do with the simple
> fact that the Pew projections ignored their own
> data, were changed with no new data from one of
> their earlier projections, and that their
> projections (as they themselves admit) have been
> "spectacularly wrong." There are valid,
> scientifically factual reasons to not give their
> projections credence.

While I do agree that the Pew projections could be wrong (they are only predictions after all), I am nevertheless inclined to give them a great deal of creedence based on 1) Pew's reputation as a polling organization; and 2) my own experiences with, and observations of, other people.

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, because people react to what they believe to
> be true, not necessarily what is actually true.

The point is, science doesn't deal in or ask for "belief." If you're using "belief" with regard to science, you are indeed missing the point.

> While I do agree that the Pew projections could be
> wrong (they are only predictions after all), I am
> nevertheless inclined to give them a great deal of
> creedence based on 1) Pew's reputation as a
> polling organization; and 2) my own experiences
> with, and observations of, other people.

What does polling, which they do well, have to do with projections? Those are two different things.
As for their reputation, they admitted themselves that their projections have been "spectacularly wrong." So when it comes to projections, their reputation sucks.
As to your own anecdotal experiences -- that's the "belief" that is resistant to change as mentioned in the OP :)

. . . "Why prove to a man he is wrong? Is that going to make him like you? Why not let him save face? He didn't ask for your opinion. He didn't want it. Why argue with him? You can't win an argument, because if you lose, you lose it; and if you win it, you lose it. Why? You will feel fine. But what about him? You have made him feel inferior, you hurt his pride, insult his intelligence, his judgement, and his self-respect, and he'll resent your triumph. That will make him strike back, but it will never make him want to change his mind. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

-Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People

Because people who are 'wrong' get into positions of authority and their 'wrongness' can cause injury.

As is obvious here, many of us are NOT trying to win friends nor influence people. Most of us are not trying to promote personal truths, but to preserve personal freedoms.

I literally do not care what you believe personally, but if you preach your opinion as truth, and I see flaws in it, how can I not point that out? Why would I remain silent?

If there's a preface, "... In my opinion..." then that seems to be an invitation for comments on the issue.

What's really sad is to have the exchange of opinions shut down by catcalls involving calumny and defamation.

elderorlddog:
The problem with your analysis is that whether something is "right" or "wrong" is purely a judgment call by the person making that call based on his/her own beliefs and/or interpretations of factual information. As Shummy and the article at the link I forwarded point out, trying to change a person's mind about something upon which he/she has a strong conviction is most of the time an exercise in futility.

It's an assumption on your part that I want to change anyone's mind.

Discourse among pleasant people is the great fun.

elderorlddog:
My assumption was based on the following statements from your first response:

"Because people who are 'wrong' get into positions of authority and their 'wrongness' can cause injury.

As is obvious here, many of us are NOT trying to win friends nor influence people. Most of us are not trying to promote personal truths, but to preserve personal freedoms.

I literally do not care what you believe personally, but if you preach your opinion as truth, and I see flaws in it, how can I not point that out? Why would I remain silent?"

Again, a presumption, but fueled by my failure to have bloviated sufficiently.

Note that 'wrong' was in quotes. Because I agree that my 'wrong' may not be your 'wrong.'

But JW (JDub) parents who believe that transfusions are wrong can kill their kids. That's a 'wrong' that polite society does not allow to stand. As is proper, no concern is given to changing the opinion of the parents, society simply places the kid with someone who then authorizes the transfusion.

Are you advocating for a world where people say whatever they want and people listen, nod their heads, smiles, and moves on?

Ignorance ought to be confronted and if there's a gold standard that merits freedom from confrontation, I've yet to be introduced to it. I'm not promulgating anything more than the privilege of uttering my opinion after someone dumps their opinion on me.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, a presumption, but fueled by my failure to
> have bloviated sufficiently.
>
> Note that 'wrong' was in quotes. Because I agree
> that my 'wrong' may not be your 'wrong.'
>
> But JW (JDub) parents who believe that
> transfusions are wrong can kill their kids.
> That's a 'wrong' that polite society does not
> allow to stand. As is proper, no concern is given
> to changing the opinion of the parents, society
> simply places the kid with someone who then
> authorizes the transfusion.

You may wish to read the article I posted on the thread at

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1750188

Apparently, when it comes to state laws about whether or not parents can refuse medical care for their children for religious reasons, there is still a great deal of contention both at the state and federal levels..
>
> Are you advocating for a world where people say
> whatever they want and people listen, nod their
> heads, smiles, and moves on?

No, I'm not advocating for anything, except learning to recognize and accept the boundaries of others.
>
> Ignorance ought to be confronted and if there's a
> gold standard that merits freedom from
> confrontation, I've yet to be introduced to it.

That's fine. However, be aware that in some cases, that confronting ignorance headlong won't do you much good.

> I'm not promulgating anything more than the
> privilege of uttering my opinion after someone
> dumps their opinion on me.

All of us have that right, including yours truly, at least in the U.S. However, maturity and experience have taught me that there are times when it is better not to venture an opinion at all, even if you have a strong one.

I believe that we are at about 97.2% total agreement.

This is a very good OP, blindguy. As for the Pew research org, it is highly reputable and the survey it used to conduct its findings concerning growth of religion trends in the world was based on scientific data, not social science.

Based on research and other studies, the scientific trumps the social studies aspect to arrive at its conclusions, that are more likely than not to occur.

Agree with Shummy's point too, well taken.

You can no more tell a religious person their beliefs are wrong or flawed than you can tell an atheist there is a God. Either side will declare you to be a liar and a heretic.

People believe what they find credible, and what sustains them, and brings them comfort both in the good times and bad.

Beliefs are a peculiar thing. Proving them is in the eye of the beholder, and personal to them.

Science allows itself the flexibility to be wrong, and to continue exploration. It does not rule out the impossible or presume to know all the answers. It is just a discipline of learning to study the physical world. It's curiosity, and creativity that sparks science. Some of the world's greatest scientists were also great visionaries.

Some have dreamt the answers to their riddles and puzzles in their sleep. Maybe the source of knowledge derives from a collective conscience that is universal, and we are its conduits in the physical world.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is a very good OP, blindguy. As for the Pew
> research org, it is highly reputable and the
> survey it used to conduct its findings concerning
> growth of religion trends in the world was based
> on scientific data, not social science.

Sorry, amyjo, but that's completely false.
First, as pointed out, their reputation as to projections isn't "highly reputable." It's awful. They admit that.
Second, their projections aren't based on any 'survey.' They gathered information from various government and non-governmental organizations (including the US census, and the UN's Population research project) and collated it.
Third, using the exact same 2010 data, last year they projected that "nones" would be the fastest growing "religious identification." Then, for no stated reason, they revised the projections to say Muslims would be the fastest growing. No reason given why the projections were changed, and they were based on the *exact same data* as the earlier projection.
Fourth, the numbers they used in the projection contradict their own data. I linked to a chart in the other thread that showed Mulsim fertility rates falling for the past 30 years, and Pew themselves projecting they would continue to fall to "replacement rate" only by 2050 -- and that the 2010-2015 fertility rate for Muslims (from their own data) was around 2.7. Yet the new projection used a *constant* (not falling, as their own data showed) rate of 3.1 (not 2.7, as their own data showed).

The projections in the article are crap. They were changed from a previous projection with no new data, they ignore "trends" Pew themselves identified, and they use numbers that Pew themselves show to be wrong. I don't know why they put out such a worthless projection, but they did.
The thing is, if you use their own data (a 2.7 current fertility rate and a declining fertility rate towards 2050), the number of Muslims still grows significantly by 2050. Not nearly to the amount their new projection shows, but still significantly. They *could* have done a good projection -- they didn't.

I wonder just how many of us will be around in 2050 to see if either the first, second, or some other projection actually comes true.

Why do you lie about what the Pew says its statistical accuracy is? I don't know what you're trying to prove by lying.

They haven't admitted that, in fact they say they're very reliable.

"Q. How accurate are the statistics derived from Pew Research polls when applied to the population of the United States?

The accuracy of polls can be judged in different ways. One is the degree to which the sample of the public interviewed for the poll is representative of the whole population. For example, does the poll include the proper proportions of older and younger adults, of people of different races, or of men and women? Another standard for accuracy is whether the poll’s questions correctly measure the attitudes or relevant behaviors of the people who are interviewed. For both of these ways of judging accuracy, Pew Research’s polls do very well. We know that key characteristics of our samples conform closely to known population parameters from large government surveys such as the U.S. Census. ...

To improve the accuracy of our polls, we statistically adjust our samples so that they match the population in terms of the most important demographic characteristics such as education and region (see our detailed methodology statement for more about how this is done). This practice, called weighting, is commonly used in survey research."

http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/12/29/how-accurate-are-the-statistics-derived-from-pew-research-polls/

"International migration is another factor that will influence the projected size of religious groups in various regions and countries.

Forecasting future migration patterns is difficult, because migration is often linked to government policies and international events that can change quickly. For this reason, many population projections do not include migration in their models. But working with researchers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria, the Pew Research Center has developed an innovative way of using data on past migration patterns to estimate the religious composition of migrant flows in the decades ahead....

The projections cover eight major groups: Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, adherents of folk religions, adherents of other religions and the unaffiliated (see Appendix C: Defining the Religious Groups). Because censuses and surveys in many countries do not provide information on religious subgroups – such as Sunni and Shia Muslims or Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians – the projections are for each religious group as a whole. Data on subgroups of the unaffiliated are also unavailable in many countries. As a result, separate projections are not possible for atheists or agnostics.

The projection model was developed in collaboration with researchers in the Age and Cohort Change Project at IIASA, who are world leaders in population projections methodology. The model uses an advanced version of the cohort-component method typically employed by demographers to forecast population growth. It starts with a population of baseline age groups, or cohorts, divided by sex and religion. Each cohort is projected into the future by adding likely gains (immigrants and people switching in) and by subtracting likely losses (deaths, emigrants and people switching out) year by year. The youngest cohorts, ages 0-4, are created by applying age-specific fertility rates to each female cohort in the childbearing years (ages 15-49), with children inheriting the mother’s religion. For more details, see the Methodology.12

In the process of gathering input data and developing the projection model, the Pew Research Center previously published reports on the current size and geographic distribution of major religious groups, including Muslims (2009), Christians (2011) and several other faiths (2012). An initial set of projections for one religious group, Muslims, was published in 2011, although it did not attempt to take religious switching into account.

Some social theorists have suggested that as countries develop economically, more of their inhabitants will move away from religious affiliation. While that has been the general experience in some parts of the world, notably Europe, it is not yet clear whether it is a universal pattern.13 In any case, the projections in this report are not based on theories about economic development leading to secularization.

Rather, the projections extend the recently observed patterns of religious switching in all countries for which sufficient data are available (70 countries in all). In addition, the projections reflect the United Nations’ expectation that in countries with high fertility rates, those rates gradually will decline in coming decades, alongside rising female educational attainment. And the projections assume that people gradually are living longer in most countries. These and other key input data and assumptions are explained in detail in Chapter 1 and the Methodology (Appendix A).

Since religious change has never previously been projected on this scale, some cautionary words are in order. Population projections are estimates built on current population data and assumptions about demographic trends, such as declining birth rates and rising life expectancies in particular countries. The projections are what will occur if the current data are accurate and current trends continue. But many events – scientific discoveries, armed conflicts, social movements, political upheavals, natural disasters and changing economic conditions, to name just a few – can shift demographic trends in unforeseen ways. That is why the projections are limited to a 40-year time frame, and subsequent chapters of this report try to give a sense of how much difference it could make if key assumptions were different.

For example, China’s 1.3 billion people (as of 2010) loom very large in global trends. At present, about 5% of China’s population is estimated to be Christian, and more than 50% is religiously unaffiliated. Because reliable figures on religious switching in China are not available, the projections do not contain any forecast for conversions in the world’s most populous country. But if Christianity expands in China in the decades to come – as some experts predict – then by 2050, the global numbers of Christians may be higher than projected, and the decline in the percentage of the world’s population that is religiously unaffiliated may be even sharper. (For more details on the possible impact of religious switching in China, see Chapter 1.)

Finally, readers should bear in mind that within every major religious group, there is a spectrum of belief and practice. The projections are based on the number of people who self-identify with each religious group, regardless of their level of observance. What it means to be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish or a member of any other faith may vary from person to person, country to country, and decade to decade."

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do you lie about what the Pew says its
> statistical accuracy is? I don't know what you're
> trying to prove by lying.
>
> They haven't admitted that, in fact they say
> they're very reliable.
>
> "Q. How accurate are the statistics derived from
> Pew Research polls when applied to the population
> of the United States?

I didn't lie -- you are looking at the wrong thing.
Statistics from polls are not projections. Those are two different things. And as I pointed out, they didn't use any "polls" as data for their projections -- they used census data and UN data -- it's cited in the article.

Try and keep up. And stop calling people liars when YOU make a mistake.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2016 12:53PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Nope, the Pew lays it out in layman's terms as to its scientific accuracy of the religion poll. It doesn't jest when it says it is highly reliable based on scientific & demographic criteria.

You have tried to juxtapose it to saying something other than what it has, and that represents to me an untruth.

"Prior predictions about the future of religion have been criticized for ultimately being inaccurate. What makes the estimates in this report different?

There is a long history of people predicting the demise of religion, but religion has proven more resilient than many people anticipated. Prior predictions were rooted in theories about social change rather than demographic data. For instance, some social scientists argued that people would move away from religion as they encountered religions different from their own, or as they achieved economic security or as they became more educated.

Our projections are not based on a theory about how religious identity will change in the future. Instead, we apply the scientific tools of demography to understand how the world’s religious composition is expected to change in the future if current trends continue. Demographers have a strong track record of modeling population change. We used these tools to anticipate future change in the religious landscape. For example, we determined that Muslims have more children per woman than any other major religious group and they also have a younger population than any other group. Consequently, we project Muslims will grow faster than any other group in the coming decades."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/08/qa-how-we-projected-the-future-of-world-religions/

You are still confusing polls with predictions. They are *NOT* the same thing.

"Our projections are not based on a theory about how religious identity will change in the future. Instead, we apply the scientific tools of demography to understand how the world’s religious composition is expected to change in the future if current trends continue."

They are taking a current trend (that is reading into a past set of information, not a prediction) and forcasting into the future (that is a prediction, not a poll) and making the assumption that the trend will continue into the future as it has in the past. Sometimes that happens but more often than not, it doesn't.

Key words here: expected to change if current trends continue. That's a big *if*



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2016 01:03PM by Devoted Exmo.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope, the Pew lays it out in layman's terms as to
> its scientific accuracy of the religion poll. It
> doesn't jest when it says it is highly reliable
> based on scientific & demographic criteria.

Oh for crying out loud, amyjo -- a projection is not a poll!
Is that really such a difficult thing to understand?

And it doesn't matter if they SAY it's "highly reliable." What matters is the methods and data they used for their projections. They used data that contradicts their own previously published data, and that contradicts their own previously published trends. That's crap.

You are confusing 'statistics' with 'projections'.

You asked Hie why he was lying. He wasn't.

Why you're conflating 'statistics' and 'projections'?

But please don't use "nitwit" in your response as I am very, very sensitive.

The original article that blindguy posted is a great one. I've used it before in debates with other atheists.

In short, giving "facts" to religious people to convince them to abandon their religious faith is counterproductive, because religious belief is stored in a psychological area that's immune to facts and reason. The decision to leave religion -- or to stay in it -- has to come from an emotional place instead. Challenging emotions with facts causes the person to cling harder to their emotions -- that's the "backfire effect" described in the article.

Furthermore, I've noticed that atheists can be just as irrational and emotionally biased as religious folks -- we're just biased in different ways. Massimo Pigliucci is a science-oriented author and blogger I respect a lot (I've met him a couple of times.) He wrote it much better than I could in the following blog post:

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/12/goals-of-atheist-activism.html

I wasn't quite prepared for the surprise I got when I met my wife's cousins from W. Virginia who are of "the earth is 6000 years old/the space program is a hoax/the dinosaurs are phony" school of belief. So I keep my opinions to myself when I talk to them. They are sweet, loving, naive hillbillies and that's fine.

RB

If I can chime in here, I have no problem with Pew Research's data collection and polling. They do a first rate job. I'm even OK with some of the claims they made that ificouldhie viewed as contradictions. For example, when one paper claims that "nones" are the fastest growing religious group, and another projects that Muslims are the fasters growing group, they could both be correct statements in context. "Nones" are the fastest growing group in the US. Muslims are the fastest growing major religious group in the world. Two different contextual groups.

I don't even disagree with the conclusions in the Pew article about their projections. They gave the sources of their data, which look fine, and they stated how they did their projections, which were fine, and stated that this is what would happen if current trends continue. That's fine too.

My objection is that current trends are not continuing. They are already in an obvious state of flux. A linear projection assumes that the rate of change is a constant. Mathematically, that is the defining feature of a linear projection. Two data points can be used to make a linear projection, but you can't tell anything about "trends" from two data points. Without additional information or assumptions, two data points will only give you a linear projection. The Pew paper did have an additional assumption about expected birth rates, so it is possible to fit an exponential population curve to two data points, but the slope of the projection can vary pretty radically depending on what birth rate you use. And the birthrate is one of those things that is in flux. The number of people who are nominally members of a religion but in reality are secularists is another number in flux.

Rodney Stark is the most famous totally botched projection in ex-Mo circles, but there is a more famous one in the wider world community. Paul Erhlich's The Population Bomb was a huge best-seller in 1968, that turned out to be spectacularly wrong, though the math was impeccable, and the assumptions actually seemed pretty reasonable. Here's a link to Ehrlich, that goes into what about his assumptions turned out to be inaccurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

Duwayne Anderson, noted exMo author and scientist, did a paper on what was wrong with Rodney Stark's projections. It is pretty technical, with lots of formulae. I have been tempted to go back and rerun his formulas with current growth numbers for LDS Inc to see how his projections have changed, but haven't done it. I thought his paper was posted on Richard Packham's web site, but I couldn't find it just now. I probably have his name spelled wrong, or that was not where I saw it. Whatever.

Lastly, The Pew paper in question was not done by "Pew Research". It was done by a couple of researchers at Pew. There's no guarantee that everyone else at Pew agrees with the conclusions, or that they agree with the assumptions the authors made about current trends.

Projections are exceedingly difficult to do in complex systems. Paul Ehrlich being a case in point. And most systems are complex. Look at hurricane position projections. The window of uncertainty on the hurricane's position 4 days ahead is often a thousand miles wide.

And I'm still not buying their projections. I've got a degree in math. I can do growth and decay curves in my sleep, and have had several jobs where we were essentially doing projections (speech recognition, submarine tracking, seismology). My skepticism is rooted in some actual technical experience and expertise.

Thank you for a clear and concise explanation as to why one can be skeptical of the PEW projections. That was very refreshing!

Do you have a reference for the Pew study referenced above? I would love to read it.

Thanks.

Here it is, from another thread discussion. Both links in my post are tied to the same study. One is the study, and the other is explaining the method, and accuracy of the report itself.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1748481,1748569#msg-1748569

The thread also contains criticisms of the article (it wasn't a study), pointing out problems with the projections, several from Pew's own data.