I'm sorry for your fear.
But the simple fact remains that the only logically sufficient reason to truly do 'good' or even right or even what is useful to oneself or others IS a belief in something bigger and more important then oneself.
Otherwise the logically thing to do is whatever feels best as conditioned by the society, biology and the physical world and if those pleasurable actions correspond in some rough way to the mutual benefit of others it's not really your concern, so long as it feels good to you. If it feels good to have friends and it's worth the trouble do so. If it feels good to order the destruction of the jewish people ala Aldof Hitler , again, do so the only arbitrar or judge of your actions is the way you feel and weather or not you survive.
I personally find that kind of attitude much more scary.
Personally I agree with you but you have left a great deal unsaid in your assumptions.
Which universal rights do you expect people to have and how do you justify such an assumption.
Do you realize you are either arguing from a sudo-religious perspective or baseless cultural norm that obviously is not shared by the Japanese.
The Japanese people and government are the obvious arbitrators of which legal rights their citizens have.
How else do you propose to define the word 'right'. So that it has meaning outside the context of the Japanese legal system. Who or what power or entity grants such a 'right'.
as too the ends justifying the means... Pavlov when answered that question as relates to his work on behavioral modification observed simply.
"The sooner we discard the concept of the existence of free will and get on with the business of governing the better off we will all be"
Do you disagree with him? Why?
You missed the qualify of 'when the two are not the same goal'
As you correctly point out, they sometimes and perhaps often are the same goal, but certainly are not always. Suppose all I have to do is lie a little to get what I want? Fudge a few results in a report about something I'm certain I'm right about anyway. Suppose that I think the risk of ostracism, bad PR , etc is well worth the multi-billions of dollars I will profit from said deception and further there is little or no chance of me being caught.
Why shouldn't I do what is in my self interest?
This decision is made all the time by all kinds of people, religious or no. To choose to benefit myself as opposed to others. Only the religious philosophy opposes it though.
From a Darwinian perspective, whatever serves to the greatest prorogation of my genetics and perhaps ideological heritage is the action that should be taken weather it kills a few million others is unimportant or irrelevant at best, because the fittest or rather must productive survive.
Is not the greatest âgoodâ(TM) common or otherwise, the survival of the strong over the weak and the prorogation of ones genetics and ideology over another? Isnâ(TM)t this simply the laws of physics and science in action and the term âgoodâ(TM) what we assign to our perception of what accomplishes that?
It is only if man is something different then a pure animal and is responsible to something greater or different then physics and nature that it is not true.
'survival of the fittest to reproduce is the only rule'
âsurvival and reproduction at itâ(TM)s optimal regardless of consequences to others is an evolutionary imperative we have all evolved towardsâ(TM)
Thankfully most atheists do not practice what they preach. They are weak minded and unwilling to embrace the real end of their own philosophy.
I say thankfully, because their philosophy is incorrect and in the end a path to destruction.
of coarse this underscores a simple reality that is often denied by Americans.
The idea that there is any such thing as 'private' sin or stated differently that what i do , at my dinner table, in my bedroom or anywhere else doesn't affect other people.
If it affects my health, if affects others.
The real question is , does the dignity of the human person require that the sovereignty of the individual be given a higher value then the good of the state.
It is of coarse impossible to make such an argument from anything other then a religious perspective, because unless man is more then the sum of his parts, "the good of the many must out way the good of the few or the one". The good of the state therefore must outweigh the privacy or freedom of choice of the individual.
Given the often nearly hostile attitudes many 'scientists' have towards religion it seems like an oath is a silly kind of thing. Oath's normally being sworn for the expressed purpose of calling down the punishment of god/ god's on oneself it that which is sworn is betrayed.
I think in many ways this attempt shows why it is man continues to need God, weather or not he exists. Without a belief in God or gods why would anyone work towards the common good? It seems it would be better to work for personal gain. The common good being useful to work for only when the two personal gain and the common good were/are the same or at least not mutually exclusive.
what a fascinating thing for some one invovled in the tech field to say. So by contributing to the state of the art you help the wealthy accumulate power ?
C.S Lewis wrote of men even in his generation that "they are distracted from distraction by distraction".
G.K Chesterton often asked of those who touted doing things in the name of 'progress'. "progress towards what?".
I think we have gotten into a dangerous cycle of technology for technologies sake and all technologist should take some time and truly consider their goals.
How or even does/ technology X improve the human condition and or human life? what are the trade offs, what are the risks. Like many other issues, in both modern and ancient society, it is all to easy to dismiss deeper and complex issues without any great thought by slapping on a slogan and then going forward.
'we do it in the name of progress' 'we do it in the name of freedom' 'we do it in the name of '
The issue is that as our technical abilities expand , we are either going to have to become a much more introspect, spiritual, and truth based race, or will we become an extinct one.
I couldn't tell from the time lapse picture. I assume there is some way to know that the scientist have that i don't. To me it looked like the white substance could just as easily be slowly liquifying and sinking down into the dirt as subliming (there appeared to be a color change around the white substance as if perhapse it was wet). ( not sure if that changes the chemical analysis or not.)
Don't forget the parent could just as easily be doing PH.D work on the pshycology of web boareds and how they effect software engineering concepts then the question would be a really good one to ask;)
not quite. degree c.1230, from O.Fr. degre "a degree, step, rank," from V.L. *degradus "a step," from L.L. degredare, from L. de- "down" + gradus "step" (see grade). Most modern senses date from M.E., from notion of a hierarchy of steps. Meaning "a grade of crime" is 1676; that of "a unit of temperature" is from 1727. The division of the circle into 360 degrees is very ancient and was known in Babylon and Egypt. It is perhaps from the daily motion of the sun through the zodiac in the course of a year.
Obvious to most is the simple fact that taking something from somewhere leaves less of it for somewhere else. ( be it money or fertalize and niether are any good if thier not spread around;)
However, less obvious is if , highly motivated, highly talented people not beings as well educated as the might be is a bad trade off as opposed to a general population of incoming college freshmen who can't find the united states on a relief map. There is a trade off being made and this study really doesn't address if it is a good trade off or not.
Lest someone think otherwise, I don't care for 'one child left behind act'. It is poor policy and takes control away from the people who should rightfully have control ( the parents). Actually I oppose fedral funding of public education. Education belongs funded primarily at the local level and possibly subsidised by the state, but that is a different issue.
My point is that the reason for the act is not addressed by this study , only one of it's effects.
I think there are more then 10 females that I work with. Most of them are very good at writting code. I think in gernal female engineers tend to have 2 common charateristics.
1) They are in a field where they are required to prove themselves more then thier male conterparts. so only people who really love the work and are good at it tend to stay.
2) As a simple product of brain construction women tend to have a better sense of over all system then men. ( This is not to suggest that the mesurments may not be overlapping but it is an exeption man who has a better sense of system then the average women.)
Before computer sciece was a degree women with music degrees were the prefered choice for computer programming jobs, because of they were viewed to be detialed oriented with strong sense of system.
That being said I think a certain divesity of prespective helps any engineering team.
this is a EARLY beta... I'd love to see it work. The PS2 camera that did something similar only worked well under perfect lighting and even then had some problems.
Of coarse there is a deeper assumption in this that 'intelligence' is somehow an magical infinitely expandable property of a 'mind'.
Neither term being well defined. The fact is that a 'mind' is dependant on hardware/wetware for expression of itself in the physical world. So one can certainly talk about 'speed of thought' like 'speed of computation' 'memory capacity' and 'input / output bandwidth'.
It is reasonably expectable that infinite intelligence would require infinite energy to process infinite information. What exactly the finite boundaries of any real world system are is pure conjecture and faith at this point in time.
It's more reasonable to believe in ancient Jews spontaneously rising from the dead then the singularity, because at least that event is purported to be known to already have happened by multiple witnesses and if those witnesses are correct we know that such an event is physically possible.
People all people want hope weather or not there is any good reason for it is a whole different debate.
Mmm.. always intrested in alternate opinion. I have a friend who is an enviormental engineer and very up on this stuff who is the source of my current info. Certainly I was talking about (current state of the art aka corn ethonal). Any other forms of ethonal production that I know have not been done on a sufficent scale to be called anything other the experimental techniques.
I think there are probably techniques by which ethonal could be used as a replacment , ( use some kind of enzyme to directly produce the ethonal and a diffusion barrer instead of heat distillation would go a long way).
However the bulk of what is availible to be used today requires energy inensive heat distillation.
I do realize the subject is somewhat debated. Do you have any good experimental data proving the conclusion wrong though?
I'm not saying that ethonal can't replace gasoline , only that the power source for the production facility needs to also be a non fossile fuel and that ethonal is more correctly looked in the short term as s distribution method.
In the end the envery comes from the plants anyway , so ethonal is really a variant on solar power ( as is wind power ) .
I think we should just pick them up and move them. The ensuing civil war which would be 100% our fault and draw in many of the surrounding nations couldn't possibly have any consequences over here or globablly. Besides we have absolutly no responsibility to the people in the land we occupied to stop the from being overun by warlords after we destroyed thier existing semi-function form of governmtn.
As seems typical in discussions about ethanol or like fuels many are missing the point.
bio-fuel technology in the current state of the art is NOT a replacement for fossils fuels nor can it be. The reason is simple , it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol then you get by burning it.
However, if you view it as a storage mechanism, ( like a battery ) and realize that it can be easily substituted into our existing infrastructure it starts to make sense.
Energy problems come in two flavors. Energy supply and energy storage/delivery ethanol is a good solution to a storage/ delivery problem. It is not even remotely a solution to the supply problem.
However, it is impractical and costly to retrofit most vehicles with a replacement energy source ( geo thermal? Solar? Wood? ). Not that cars can't use any of these thing, but they currently don't and the work needed to make them do so is years away.
However, if we use solar, wind, geo-thermal what have you to produce ethanol we can power our cars indirectly from wind/solar rather then fossil flues.
This process is highly inefficient, but it is better then nothing and could reduce or eliminate the use of fossil fuels in a much shorter time then any other option.
As such I think it makes a nice intermediate step even if it isn't the final solution.
Your idea that God is referenced in the masculine , because religion was 'invented' by dudes would have more merit were it not for that fact that ancient paganism , Hinduism and every other major world religion was equally invented by 'dudes' and none of them show the same characteristic of viewing God in a more or less exclusively masculine way.
I also, know many women who would disagree with you. Religions invariably use symbolism to teach about what is beyond human concepts and words. The symbolism of maleness is different then the symbolism of femaleness.
Not to be too blunt but females are penetrated and males penetrate. Theologically it is a significant difference weather creation is part of god by it's and very nature ( creation penetrates god) or (god must transcend and reach out in order for creation to be filled with his presence , he must penetrate it).
That is why creation , the church of Christ founded, and Christians in general are usually referred to in the feminine while referring to God in the masculine.
( ex 'mother church' the 'bride of Christ')
Much of Christian theology, especially in the new testament is coached in nuptial symbolism where God/ Jesus is the bridegroom and humanity/ the world / the church is the bride.
I understand and agree, of coarse i find it just as annoying when some atheist or agnostic tries to 'disprove' the existence of 'the god delusion' by claiming belief is God is not rational. Which was at least hinted at by many of the initial responses to this , including that parent.
No offense intended but those who take the bible literally as an article of faith are not amongst the majority of Christians, neither in the modern era or historically
(you can run the search yourself it is available in many places.)
Here is one: http://www.wholesomewords.org/missions/greatc.html#religions Christian 2,173,183,400
Roman Catholics 1,135,729,000
Independents* 432,223,000
Protestants 382,179,000
Orthodox 219,433,000
Anglicans 81,237,000 Muslims 1,335,964,100 Hindus 871,982,000 Chinese universists 386,666,900 Buddhists 382,542,000 Sikhs 25,880,100 Jews 15,118,000
Among the Christians, the Protestants would be the only category where you would find a requirement for the literal interpretation of the bible in this list and it would be a sub category of them only as many mainstream protestants do not have that requirement, but I don't have exact numbers of that. So from this list it is easy to say no more then 17% of Christians have it as an article of faith that the bible is literally true, my guess would be the number is yet again significantly lower. My guess would be the real percentage is somewhere near half of that ( less if Mormons are not biblical literalist but I don't really know.) Any hard numbers would be dicey though because what a given protestant group believes is hard to know with certainty.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry for your fear. But the simple fact remains that the only logically sufficient reason to truly do 'good' or even right or even what is useful to oneself or others IS a belief in something bigger and more important then oneself. Otherwise the logically thing to do is whatever feels best as conditioned by the society, biology and the physical world and if those pleasurable actions correspond in some rough way to the mutual benefit of others it's not really your concern, so long as it feels good to you. If it feels good to have friends and it's worth the trouble do so. If it feels good to order the destruction of the jewish people ala Aldof Hitler , again, do so the only arbitrar or judge of your actions is the way you feel and weather or not you survive. I personally find that kind of attitude much more scary.
Personally I agree with you but you have left a great deal unsaid in your assumptions. Which universal rights do you expect people to have and how do you justify such an assumption. Do you realize you are either arguing from a sudo-religious perspective or baseless cultural norm that obviously is not shared by the Japanese. The Japanese people and government are the obvious arbitrators of which legal rights their citizens have. How else do you propose to define the word 'right'. So that it has meaning outside the context of the Japanese legal system. Who or what power or entity grants such a 'right'. as too the ends justifying the means ... Pavlov when answered that question as relates to his work on behavioral modification observed simply.
"The sooner we discard the concept of the existence of free will and get on with the business of governing the better off we will all be"
Do you disagree with him? Why?
You missed the qualify of 'when the two are not the same goal' As you correctly point out, they sometimes and perhaps often are the same goal, but certainly are not always. Suppose all I have to do is lie a little to get what I want? Fudge a few results in a report about something I'm certain I'm right about anyway. Suppose that I think the risk of ostracism, bad PR , etc is well worth the multi-billions of dollars I will profit from said deception and further there is little or no chance of me being caught. Why shouldn't I do what is in my self interest? This decision is made all the time by all kinds of people, religious or no. To choose to benefit myself as opposed to others. Only the religious philosophy opposes it though. From a Darwinian perspective, whatever serves to the greatest prorogation of my genetics and perhaps ideological heritage is the action that should be taken weather it kills a few million others is unimportant or irrelevant at best, because the fittest or rather must productive survive. Is not the greatest âgoodâ(TM) common or otherwise, the survival of the strong over the weak and the prorogation of ones genetics and ideology over another? Isnâ(TM)t this simply the laws of physics and science in action and the term âgoodâ(TM) what we assign to our perception of what accomplishes that? It is only if man is something different then a pure animal and is responsible to something greater or different then physics and nature that it is not true. 'survival of the fittest to reproduce is the only rule' âsurvival and reproduction at itâ(TM)s optimal regardless of consequences to others is an evolutionary imperative we have all evolved towardsâ(TM) Thankfully most atheists do not practice what they preach. They are weak minded and unwilling to embrace the real end of their own philosophy. I say thankfully, because their philosophy is incorrect and in the end a path to destruction.
of coarse this underscores a simple reality that is often denied by Americans. The idea that there is any such thing as 'private' sin or stated differently that what i do , at my dinner table, in my bedroom or anywhere else doesn't affect other people. If it affects my health, if affects others. The real question is , does the dignity of the human person require that the sovereignty of the individual be given a higher value then the good of the state. It is of coarse impossible to make such an argument from anything other then a religious perspective, because unless man is more then the sum of his parts, "the good of the many must out way the good of the few or the one". The good of the state therefore must outweigh the privacy or freedom of choice of the individual.
Given the often nearly hostile attitudes many 'scientists' have towards religion it seems like an oath is a silly kind of thing. Oath's normally being sworn for the expressed purpose of calling down the punishment of god/ god's on oneself it that which is sworn is betrayed.
I think in many ways this attempt shows why it is man continues to need God, weather or not he exists. Without a belief in God or gods why would anyone work towards the common good? It seems it would be better to work for personal gain. The common good being useful to work for only when the two personal gain and the common good were/are the same or at least not mutually exclusive.
what a fascinating thing for some one invovled in the tech field to say. So by contributing to the state of the art you help the wealthy accumulate power ?
that's a new one to me, but perhaps the most acccurate, one might rephrase it to say.
'We do it because we worship ourselves'.
http://www.matthewkelly.org/quote8.html
"All man's miseries derive from not being able to sit quietly in a room alone." -- Blaise Pascal
C.S Lewis wrote of men even in his generation that "they are distracted from distraction by distraction".
G.K Chesterton often asked of those who touted doing things in the name of 'progress'. "progress towards what?".
I think we have gotten into a dangerous cycle of technology for technologies sake and all technologist should take some time and truly consider their goals.
How or even does/ technology X improve the human condition and or human life?
what are the trade offs, what are the risks. Like many other issues, in both modern and ancient society, it is all to easy to dismiss deeper and complex issues without any great thought by slapping on a slogan and then going forward.
'we do it in the name of progress'
'we do it in the name of freedom'
'we do it in the name of '
The issue is that as our technical abilities expand , we are either going to have to become a much more introspect, spiritual, and truth based race, or will we become an extinct one.
I couldn't tell from the time lapse picture. I assume there is some way to know that the scientist have that i don't. To me it looked like the white substance could just as easily be slowly liquifying and sinking down into the dirt as subliming (there appeared to be a color change around the white substance as if perhapse it was wet). ( not sure if that changes the chemical analysis or not.)
Don't forget the parent could just as easily be doing PH.D work on the pshycology of web boareds and how they effect software engineering concepts then the question would be a really good one to ask ;)
not quite.
degree
c.1230, from O.Fr. degre "a degree, step, rank," from V.L. *degradus "a step," from L.L. degredare, from L. de- "down" + gradus "step" (see grade). Most modern senses date from M.E., from notion of a hierarchy of steps. Meaning "a grade of crime" is 1676; that of "a unit of temperature" is from 1727. The division of the circle into 360 degrees is very ancient and was known in Babylon and Egypt. It is perhaps from the daily motion of the sun through the zodiac in the course of a year.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=degree
so degrees that involve tempature are NOT degree's that involve angle but the more generic 'steps of a scale'.
Obvious to most is the simple fact that taking something from somewhere leaves less of it for somewhere else. ( be it money or fertalize and niether are any good if thier not spread around ;)
However, less obvious is if , highly motivated, highly talented people not beings as well educated as the might be is a bad trade off as opposed to a general population of incoming college freshmen who can't find the united states on a relief map. There is a trade off being made and this study really doesn't address if it is a good trade off or not.
Lest someone think otherwise, I don't care for 'one child left behind act'. It is poor policy and takes control away from the people who should rightfully have control ( the parents). Actually I oppose fedral funding of public education. Education belongs funded primarily at the local level and possibly subsidised by the state, but that is a different issue.
My point is that the reason for the act is not addressed by this study , only one of it's effects.
intresting, so if I leave my access point open and log nothing no one can prove _I_ did it.
;)
( that may or may not of coarse stop me from going to jail
in china playing fair means ensuring the goverment has full control.
Hey where is the section to remind people we are the 'good' guys. ;)
I think there are more then 10 females that I work with. Most of them are very good at writting code.
I think in gernal female engineers tend to have 2 common charateristics.
1) They are in a field where they are required to prove themselves more then thier male conterparts. so only people who really love the work and are good at it tend to stay.
2) As a simple product of brain construction women tend to have a better sense of over all system then men. ( This is not to suggest that the mesurments may not be overlapping but it is an exeption man who has a better sense of system then the average women.)
Before computer sciece was a degree women with music degrees were the prefered choice for computer programming jobs, because of they were viewed to be detialed oriented with strong sense of system.
That being said I think a certain divesity of prespective helps any engineering team.
this is a EARLY beta ... I'd love to see it work.
The PS2 camera that did something similar only worked well under perfect lighting and even then had some problems.
I'll wait to see this. cool if it works though.
Of coarse there is a deeper assumption in this that 'intelligence' is somehow an magical infinitely expandable property of a 'mind'.
Neither term being well defined. The fact is that a 'mind' is dependant on hardware/wetware for expression of itself in the physical world. So one can certainly talk about 'speed of thought' like 'speed of computation' 'memory capacity' and 'input / output bandwidth'.
It is reasonably expectable that infinite intelligence would require infinite energy to process infinite information. What exactly the finite boundaries of any real world system are is pure conjecture and faith at this point in time.
It's more reasonable to believe in ancient Jews spontaneously rising from the dead then the singularity, because at least that event is purported to be known to already have happened by multiple witnesses and if those witnesses are correct we know that such an event is physically possible.
People all people want hope weather or not there is any good reason for it is a whole different debate.
Mmm.. always intrested in alternate opinion. I have a friend who is an enviormental engineer and very up on this stuff who is the source of my current info. Certainly I was talking about (current state of the art aka corn ethonal).
Any other forms of ethonal production that I know have not been done on a sufficent scale to be called anything other the experimental techniques.
I think there are probably techniques by which ethonal could be used as a replacment , ( use some kind of enzyme to directly produce the ethonal and a diffusion barrer instead of heat distillation would go a long way).
However the bulk of what is availible to be used today requires energy inensive heat distillation.
I do realize the subject is somewhat debated. Do you have any good experimental data proving the conclusion wrong though?
I'm not saying that ethonal can't replace gasoline , only that the power source for the production facility needs to also be a non fossile fuel and that ethonal is more correctly looked in the short term as s distribution method.
In the end the envery comes from the plants anyway , so ethonal is really a variant on solar power ( as is wind power ) .
I think we should just pick them up and move them. The ensuing civil war which would be 100% our fault and draw in many of the surrounding nations couldn't possibly have any consequences over here or globablly. Besides we have absolutly no responsibility to the people in the land we occupied to stop the from being overun by warlords after we destroyed thier existing semi-function form of governmtn.
As seems typical in discussions about ethanol or like fuels many are missing the point.
bio-fuel technology in the current state of the art is NOT a replacement for fossils fuels nor can it be. The reason is simple , it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol then you get by burning it.
However, if you view it as a storage mechanism, ( like a battery ) and realize that it can be easily substituted into our existing infrastructure it starts to make sense.
Energy problems come in two flavors. Energy supply and energy storage/delivery
ethanol is a good solution to a storage/ delivery problem. It is not even remotely a solution to the supply problem.
However, it is impractical and costly to retrofit most vehicles with a replacement energy source ( geo thermal? Solar? Wood? ). Not that cars can't use any of these thing, but they currently don't and the work needed to make them do so is years away.
However, if we use solar, wind, geo-thermal what have you to produce ethanol we can power our cars indirectly from wind/solar rather then fossil flues.
This process is highly inefficient, but it is better then nothing and could reduce or eliminate the use of fossil fuels in a much shorter time then any other option.
As such I think it makes a nice intermediate step even if it isn't the final solution.
Your idea that God is referenced in the masculine , because religion was 'invented' by dudes would have more merit were it not for that fact that ancient paganism , Hinduism and every other major world religion was equally invented by 'dudes' and none of them show the same characteristic of viewing God in a more or less exclusively masculine way.
I also, know many women who would disagree with you. Religions invariably use symbolism to teach about what is beyond human concepts and words. The symbolism of maleness is different then the symbolism of femaleness.
Not to be too blunt but females are penetrated and males penetrate.
Theologically it is a significant difference weather creation is part of god by it's and very nature ( creation penetrates god) or (god must transcend and reach out in order for creation to be filled with his presence , he must penetrate it).
That is why creation , the church of Christ founded, and Christians in general are usually referred to in the feminine while referring to God in the masculine.
( ex 'mother church' the 'bride of Christ')
Much of Christian theology, especially in the new testament is coached in nuptial symbolism where God/ Jesus is the bridegroom and humanity/ the world / the church is the bride.
I understand and agree, of coarse i find it just as annoying when some atheist or agnostic tries to 'disprove' the existence of 'the god delusion' by claiming belief is God is not rational. Which was at least hinted at by many of the initial responses to this , including that parent.
No offense intended but those who take the bible literally as an article of faith are not amongst the majority of Christians, neither in the modern era or historically
(you can run the search yourself it is available in many places.)
Here is one:
http://www.wholesomewords.org/missions/greatc.html#religions
Christian 2,173,183,400
Roman Catholics 1,135,729,000
Independents* 432,223,000
Protestants 382,179,000
Orthodox 219,433,000
Anglicans 81,237,000
Muslims 1,335,964,100
Hindus 871,982,000
Chinese universists 386,666,900
Buddhists 382,542,000
Sikhs 25,880,100
Jews 15,118,000
Among the Christians, the Protestants would be the only category where you would find a requirement for the literal interpretation of the bible in this list and it would be a sub category of them only as many mainstream protestants do not have that requirement, but I don't have exact numbers of that. So from this list it is easy to say no more then 17% of Christians have it as an article of faith that the bible is literally true, my guess would be the number is yet again significantly lower. My guess would be the real percentage is somewhere near half of that ( less if Mormons are not biblical literalist but I don't really know.) Any hard numbers would be dicey though because what a given protestant group believes is hard to know with certainty.