by Much is being made over the latest survey to demonstrate that Americans know less than we think we do. This time, the subject is religion. The Pew Forum this week released the results of its U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, designed to test Americans’ knowledge of major faith traditions and the role of religion in public life. On average, Americans could answer only half of the questions correctly. Surprisingly, in country in which 60% say their religion is very important to them and 40% attend worship services at least once a week, many Americans could not correctly answer questions even about their own faiths. For example, 45% of American Catholics do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine of communion is truly the body and blood of Christ and 47% of Protestants could not correctly identify Martin Luther. Atheists, who on average did better on the test than believers, are gloating: the more you know, apparently, the less you believe.
Americans’ lack of religious knowledge is embarrassing. Religion is an important part of our world and it would be better if we all knew more about it. But we should be careful not to exaggerate the importance of this survey. First, Americans know less than we think we do about a lot of things. For example, recent surveys show that most of us cannot correctly name the three branches of our government and that half of us think that the Civil War occurred before the American Revolution. Americans’ ignorance about religion is just an aspect of our general lack of knowledge – it doesn’t reflect anything more significant than that.
Second, if you actually look at the breakdown, the results of the survey are maybe not quite so terrible. Large majorities could identify some basic facts about religion, for example, which Biblical figure led the Exodus and the place where Jesus was born. Most could name the first book of the Bible. Where people really fell down was on somewhat more esoteric questions, like the differences between Protestant and Catholic salvation theology and the identity of Maimonides. For academics who study religion, these are extremely important matters. But they are not for most people. For most people, religion is more a visceral attachment – a matter of community, tradition, ritual, ethics, and emotion. Intellectual explanations count for much less. That people don’t know abstract doctrine says relatively little about their commitment to their religion, just as people’s ignorance about American history says relatively little about their attachment to their country.
Finally, on the point that American atheists know more about religion than believers: could it be that, as a minority, atheists have greater incentive to master the arguments? Belief is still the default option in American public life. If you want to go with the flow, you can ignore the atheist position. If you resist the dominant culture, though, you have to explain why to yourself and others. Practically and psychologically, atheists may need to know the arguments in a way believers do not.
Growing up in the churches of Christ tradition, I was always baffled when I met priests, preachers and leaders of other Christian groups that seemed to know so little about the Bible. I don’t mean they disagree with the various CofC interpretation, but rather simple things like which Apostles were at the Transfiguration, Moses not being able to enter the promised land or what was or was not tithed and why. (Forget that Acts and Galatians don’t agree on where Paul was and when and with whom or other controversies.)
If you come from a tradition that really saturates you in this stuff, it’s pretty hard to avoid absorbing it. But I suppose if you don’t, there’s no particular reason to pick up all the details. I remember my father pouring over commentaries, various translations and studying all day on Saturday to lead a study on Sunday morning covering a single verse in Romans. That sort of detail work results in a different mode (not necessarily a better mode) of appreciating the material.