First, surveys tend to get the answers that their authors want them to. We see this in polls and focus groups. It is hard to be objective. The phrasing of the questions need to be tested on a control group. The survey should be conducted double-blind. None of that happened in this case. There is prima facie evidence of bias in this survey. One indication of this bias is the skewed interpretation of the data, commented on by others already. Another is the vague nature of some questions, such as asking about "spirituality." Finally, the in depth survey was conducted personally by the author, which allows for unintentional bias via leading questions and non-verbal queuing.
Second, whether there are gods is a matter of fact, which cannot be decided by voting. It is irrelevant if many or most people or scientists believe gods exist or not.
Slashdot Mirror
First, surveys tend to get the answers that their authors want them to. We see this in polls and focus groups. It is hard to be objective. The phrasing of the questions need to be tested on a control group. The survey should be conducted double-blind. None of that happened in this case. There is prima facie evidence of bias in this survey. One indication of this bias is the skewed interpretation of the data, commented on by others already. Another is the vague nature of some questions, such as asking about "spirituality." Finally, the in depth survey was conducted personally by the author, which allows for unintentional bias via leading questions and non-verbal queuing. Second, whether there are gods is a matter of fact, which cannot be decided by voting. It is irrelevant if many or most people or scientists believe gods exist or not.