I'm also not surprised that so many "Christians" in the USA ignore the warnings from Jesus about wealth.

If it makes them uncomfortable, such as the idea of death or "Hell" in the first place, then ignore it or try to circumvent it with cognitive dissonance.

Most Christians don't bother to learn about a religion outside their own, unless it is something bad about that religion.

Complete article:

https://www.pewforum.org/2019/07/23/what-americans-know-about-religion/

The 32 questions included such things as transubstantiation, salvation by faith alone, the Buddhist Four Truths, the major religion in Thailand, when does the Jewish week start (that one got me-- it's Friday, not Saturday, btw)...

Most people aren't that knowledgeable about their own religions, much less someone else's. Atheists? I suspect they spend a lot of time learning about religions to argue against them.

a lot of atheists actually looked into various religions before rejecting them.

Some started out as pious and later rejected the faith after learning about the biblical contradictions and doctrine based on convenience.

perhaps most of them. UU ministers, too.

Some do leave their churches when they can no longer accept the mythology, but others understand that a religion is not necessarily dependent upon a belief in a deity.

It's a process. A journey.

In academe, many study "comparative religions." Which compares religions ... and uncovers the basic core idea of most of them. Once you see that, you know enough to adopt - or reject - that general essence. Its good and bad general qualities.

Those who see only the good qualities, and adopt it, end up with say, Guil's general, nonspecific, generic "Creator." Those who have finally seen/had enough, who see the bad that always slyly accompanies the good, become atheists.

I also did pretty well on the quiz (15/15).

Wishing you well and peace!

Tim

Period.

I guess DU members who choose to participate in Religion Group are not truly "average".

know more about their topic of interest.

A critical thinking study years ago collected a bunch of scholars and researchers in literature, science, social sciences and got a set of questions that would involve critical thinking of each set. Then they gave those questions to everybody in the set.

The chemistry PhDs scored really high when it came to their field. But around the level of their latest coursework in other fields--which often meant high school history or literature. It was the same for mathematicians, historians, philosophers, materials engineers, computer scientists, political scientists. The real take-away is that there is no general "critical thinking" apparatus, you need to know facts and issues and even analytical techniques for each field, and while there can be some overlap (chemistry and physics, perhaps, or political science and history) for the most part expertise in political science doesn't make you any more knowledgeable than a high-school senior in chemistry, and if you're an expert in economics that really doesn't mean you know squat about engineering.

In other words, from bottom to top, if you're interested in something and work at knowing more about it, you're going to know more than if you're not interested in something and don't pay attention.

That could be "religion." It could be "Xianity." It could be the development and practice of sonata-allegro form or wander-words and their connection to archeology.

more knowledgeable in many subjects because they tend to be curiosity-based fact-consumers in general.

A short-answer quiz of limited number of questions is fairly easy for many to ace; in depth questions in a specific field would be much more difficult for all.

Many or even most subjects advance as one grows older, so a well-informed person has to continue in adapting what was learned in high school or college to current knowledge standards.
How much adaptation or new learning is done is usually a free choice by the individual.
I count myself as one who has not grown much in adulthood in certain fields.

Time, interest and demands of work and life limit our ability to consume new knowledge.

The "fake Christians" know their Bible better than the other Christian denominations. Strange, innit?

(or both?)

...I would assume it would be 'both'.