My Take: Asian immigration is making U.S. less religious

[rug]

June 20th, 2012
04:17 PM ET

Editor's Note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "The American Bible: How Our Words Unite, Divide, and Define a Nation," is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.

By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN

When I first started studying Asian religions in the United States in graduate school, I assumed that the story of Asian immigration was a story of the arrival and adaptation of Hinduism, Buddhism and other Asian religions.

And so it is. But the broader story is much more complicated and intriguing.

Although Vietnam is a Buddhist stronghold, many Vietnamese immigrants are Catholics. And many Korean immigrants are evangelical Christians. So immigration from Asia is transforming Christianity in the United States as well as Buddhism and Hinduism.

“The Rise of Asian Americans,” a study released on Tuesday by the Pew Research Center, got a lot of press for finding that new Asian immigrants now outnumber new Hispanic immigrants

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/20/my-take-asian-immigration-is-making-u-s-less-religious/

[laconicsax]

1. His conclusion isn't well supported by the data he gives.

He says that Asian Americans are 6% of the US population and that 26% of those are "nones." That amounts to 1.5% of the US population.

Of that 1.5% neither Prothero not Pew give numbers on what proportion of those are recent immigrants.

The increase in religiously unaffiliated people is far more than the 1.5% of Asian-Americans can account for and it's a near certainty that only a fraction of that 1.5% are recent immigrants.

[rug]

2. Here's the data.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asian-americans/

[laconicsax]

3. Already read it.

It doesn't differentiate between recent immigrants, older immigrants, and natural born citizens. It just gives the numbers for the whole population.

[rug]

4. I expect he acquired a familiarity with statistics while earning his Harvard doctorate.

http://www.stephenprothero.com/about/

[laconicsax]

5. *yawn*

Appeal to authority.

[rug]

6. Acknowlegment of ability.

I will be more than happy to compare your expertise in this area to his.

[laconicsax]

7. Way to double down on that fallacy.

Unless he has access to other data, his "take" isn't supported.

Now, do you have anything other than a silly appeal to authority or are you just being contrary for the sake of being contrary?

[rug]

8. You seriously misunderstand that fallacy.

Apparently, a person's education, training and experience does not trump your contrary opinion.

In this particular case, this guy's entire education, traing and experience is in this area. You counter with . . . . "*yawn*".

Pardon me for not taking your opinion seriously. I do not accept the fallacy of false attribution.

[laconicsax]

11. No, I understand it quite well.

A person's education, training, and experience does not automatically render their argument valid, especially when said education, training, and experience is in an field unrelated to their argument. He has a BA in American Studies, and MA and PhD in the "Study of Religion." Here's his 29-page CV. None of that says anything about him being so much of an expert in statistics that he is beyond reproach.

It's pathetic is that you're seriously arguing that someone with a PhD in religious studies is enough of an expert in statistics to make up for the fact that his conclusion is completely unsupported by the data he provides. That's as close to an archetypical example of an appeal to inappropriate authority as it gets.

Alternatively, if you want me to say, "oh yes! The prestige of his almae matres makes him an infallible authority. I cower at his wealth and privilege," you have to admit that he's more of an expert in whatever area of law you practice because if a PhD in religious studies automatically makes one an absolute authority in one unrelated field, it makes one an absolute authority in any other unrelated field.

[rug]

12. Methinks you protest too much.

On what expertise of yours should I rely in order to give credence to your posts?

Should I accept them simply because you said them? You complain the statistical data does not support his opinion. Really? Well then, what is your training and expertise in data collection and interpretation? Is there a reason I should accept your conclusion over his?

So far, all I've seen is an appeal to laconicsax, which I suspect would be a fallacy.

[laconicsax]

13. Just look at the facts.

The data he references give the religious affiliations of Asian Americans as a whole, namely that 26% of 6% of the US population is not affiliated with any particular religion. From that, he concludes that recent Asian immigrants are fueling the increase in religiously unaffiliated Americans.

None of the data he cites includes a breakdown of the religious affiliation of recent Asian immigrants. None of it includes any kind of information on trends in religious affiliation in the Asian American demographic. He even provides information that contradicts his conclusion:

Sociologists of religion have observed that immigrants often become more religious after arriving in the United States. So it could be that Chinese Americans, who are roughly half unaffiliated, will become more Christian or more Buddhist over time.

What does he follow that with?

But for now it seems that Asian immigration is doing more than making America wealthier, more educated, and more liberal.

Based on absolutely nothing presented in the entire piece.

If you disagree, why not do the honest thing and present a fact-based rebuttal? You know, use the piece you posted and the referenced data to demonstrate why his conclusions are, in fact, well founded.

[humblebum]

33. Your "appeal to authority" is a little weak, as is usually the case with

your understanding of logical fallacy. By your interpretation looking up the definition of a particular word in a dictionary would be an "appeal to authority" and not logically sound. Very weak.

[laconicsax]

34. Ooh! Someone else who would rather discuss me rather than the content of the OP!

What fun!

[humblebum]

35. Actually we are both discussing the same topic, namely

whether or not a logical fallacy has occurred and to what extent.

[laconicsax]

36. And yet you can't seem to muster anything to support your position.

I've stated why the conclusion of the piece in the OP is flawed, and all anyone has offered in response are a logical fallacy and ad hominem comments.

Tell you what: Why don't you prove me wrong? I say that rug's response that Prothero's credentials invalidate my argument is an appeal to authority (technically an appeal to false authority, but that's beside the point). Why don't you show how a Prothero's PhD in religious studies addresses my argument that his conclusion is unsupported by the data he uses? Shouldn't be too hard to demonstrate if it's true.

Here, I'll get you started:

"Prothero's possession of a PhD in religious studies from Harvard addresses laconicsax's argument that the conclusion in the OP is unsupported by the data provided because..."

If you want to go the extra mile, try this one:

"Prothero's possession of a PhD in religious studies from Harvard fully refutes laconicsax's argument that the conclusion in the OP is unsupported by the data provided because...

[humblebum]

37. The flaw in your understanding of logical fallacy is that

for you, it is always - 'black and white', 'yes or no', 'absolutely right or absolutely wrong' - and that is not the way it works. The opinion of one PhD does not automatically mean that an issue is final and can no longer be disputed. But, the opinion of that PhD holds more weight than the opinion any common Joe Blo who has no concept of what he is commenting on.

[laconicsax]

38. I take it you're going to decline my offer to prove me wrong.

Prothero's conclusion, that recent Asian immigrants are making the US less religious, is pure conjecture that is unsupported by the data he provides.

You are again welcome to demonstrate why I'm wrong. It's up to you whether you address the content of my claim or your perception of me as a person.

[humblebum]

39. I have never given an opinion on whether or not the author is right or wrong. But

I am expressing an opinion on your use of what constitutes logical fallacy. And that is where I stand. From my experiences with you, I have learned that you use the "logical fallacy" assertion as a standard rebuttal in many of your arguments. That in itself is an appeal to authority, which of course is a logical fallacy.

[laconicsax]

42. Wow, that's meta.

[humblebum]

43. Wow. That's a non-answer.

[rexcat]

9. According to US Census data (2010)...

The 2010 Census showed that the U.S. population on April 1, 2010, was 308.7 million. Out of the total U.S. population, 14.7 million people, or 4.8 percent, were Asian alone (see Table 1). In addition, 2.6 million people, or another 0.9 percent, reported Asian in com¬bination with one or more other races.12 Together, these two groups totaled 17.3 million people. Thus, 5.6 percent of all people in the United States identified as Asian, either alone or in combination with one or more other races.

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States


It would be difficult to attribute a decrease in religiosity in the US to the increase in Asian immigration based on this study. Not affiliating with a religious group does not necessarily mean they are all non-believers. I think the author of the study is making some assumptions that can't be backed up by the data.

[laconicsax]

10. Oh, but you see. He has a religious studies degree from Harvard, so obviously he is beyond reproach.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121832771#post4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121832771#post6
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121832771#post8

[rug]

14. Tsk, tsk. You just can't help changing words.

Are you unable to simply answer words as they're written?

[laconicsax]

15. I see you again chose to try a personal attack rather than say anything substantive.

How are you coming with that fact-based rebuttal? I'm sure a clever guy like you is already putting the final touches on a devastating argument that clearly shows that Prothero's conclusion about religiosity in recent immigrants is well supported by data about religiosity in a largely population that it largely non-recent immigrant.

I mean it's been over an hour since I invited you to actually prove me wrong. Surely you're not going to run away...

ETA: I'd like to point out that rexcat reached the same conclusion and you haven't replied to his post to say something about how Prothero's religious studies degree confers an expertise in statistics that is unmatched by a lowly atheist. Why is that?

[rug]

17. Calling you on your persistent changing of others' words is not a personal attack.

It's a correction.

And in the hours since I slept, you have been unable to answer why.

[laconicsax]

23. What's that? You don't have a fact-based rebuttal?

How hard could it be? If I'm wrong, it should be a piece of piss to simply show how Prothero's conclusion is well-supported.

[rug]

26. What's that? You don't have an answer? Still?

[daaron]

40. LOL! This thread has blown up!

It's on fire!

Heh - I gotta hand it to you, laconicsax, you know how to get under a couple DUers skins around here. Amusing to watch. Someone else can ask the same questions and not even get a response, whereas in your case posters pile on trying to make it about you. Aren't you supposed to be answering some presumptuous rhetorical question about yourself, not badgering thread-hawgs about TOPICS and ISSUES?!?

Like, guuu-uy!!

[rug]

41. It's very amusing.

[laconicsax]

44. It's all in the finest tradition of this group.

Last edited Tue Jun 26, 2012, 09:07 PM - Edit history (4)

[cbayer]

45. +1

[rug]

46. +10

[laconicsax]

47. You're off by 1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121832771#post4
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121832771#post6
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121832771#post8
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121832771#post12
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121832771#post14
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121832771#post17
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121832771#post18
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121832771#post25
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121832771#post28

That's 9, not 10

[rug]

48. Well, aren't you personally obsessed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12307297

If I were interested, there's plenty more.

[laconicsax]

49. Well now it's ten.

I stand corrected.

[rug]

50. I'm glad you keep close counts of my posts.

Last edited Sat Jun 23, 2012, 07:00 AM - Edit history (1)

[eqfan592]

51. lol, so by providing links they are "personally obsessed."

But if they hadn't provided links, you almost certainly would have requested that they did. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh?

[rug]

52. My, such interest in one's posts.

Last edited Sat Jun 23, 2012, 07:00 AM - Edit history (1)

[daaron]

53. Communist-related Non Sequitur Alert System Test

This has been a test of the communist-related non sequitur alert system. It's sole purpose was to tickle this thread PINK. The authority in charge of conducting these tests apologizes if this image has alarmed anyone. There is no communist threat, and there is no subtext. This communist-related non sequitur alert test was inserted at the tail end of what was deemed to be the most important thread ever. Sorry about inserting this communist-related non sequitur alert test in your thread.

Please continue.

[rug]

54. Is this an attempt to comment on a poster's avatar?

Last edited Sat Jun 23, 2012, 07:01 AM - Edit history (1)

The descent continues.

[daaron]

56. Not at all. It's a new thing I invented to throw water on flaming subthreads -->

that are getting personal and dragging the thread off-topic. We'll see how my new invention works out. This was it's first test, online (though I daily make communist-related non sequitur jokes in meatspace, too).

It has a "communist-related" theme only because, for some reason, I think communism is hilarious. It shows up in the darnedest places! But I'm starting to get the feeling that someone around here is a cranky pants lately, or just doesn't have a sense of humor like mine own. I'm sorry if Marx had a beard. Trust me I didn't troll the webs to find an image to insult you with, rug.

You'll see. Next time there's a Communist-related Non Sequitur Alert Test, I'll find a new communist-related something to insert. It wouldn't be non sequitur, otherwise.

[rexcat]

20. I feel left out!!!

The article made no sense after reading it. It took me some time on the US Census web page to even find what I did. Of interest, the US Census Bureau does not collect religious preference data per US law. One has to wonder what prejudices the author has with Asians to come up with the wild assertion that Asian immigrants are responsible for an increase in the lack of religiosity in the US based on the information provided in the article. At this point the author of the article has no credibility with me.

[rexcat]

19. Obviously a degree in theology...

even at the PhD level does not grant the author authority in statistical analysis, the ability to critically analyze data or have any common sense! That might also go for some on this forum, present company being the exception.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. The headline makes an assertion that the body of the article doesn't

Whether that's his fault, or some sub-editor at CNN, we don't know. But the text says "So it could be that Chinese Americans ..." and "It may also be making the United States less religious". That's changed to "Asian immigration is making U.S. less religious" in the headline.

The text doesn't claim to have shown this (so rug's appeal to authority was pointless, as well as a fallacy). But if the title had been as uncertain as the text, maybe CNN wouldn't have bothered posting it.

[rug]

18. That's a small difference.

And giving greater weight to an expert's thoughts than to to those of an anonymous internet poster with an axe to grind is neither pointless nor a fallacy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. It's pointless because this was not about the use of statistics, nor about religious studies

It was about the lack of statistics to support that conclusion. You don't need special expertise to see that the support is not there; laconicsax pointed it out, and gave reasons. Your response was a classic case of an appeal to authority - just pointing to his CV, rather than addressing laconicsax's posts, and you dug yourself further into the hole with your subsequent remarks. A BA in American Studies and a PhD in the Study of Religion does not imply a special expertise with statistics anyway.

"Not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy. 'These pills must be safe and effective for reducing. They have been endorsed by Miss X, star of stage, screen, and television.'"
(W.L. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion. Humanities Press, 1980)

http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/appealauthterm.htm

If you think the difference is small - well then, we can conclude Dr. Prothero has made an assertion without evidence, without any excuse at all.

[rug]

25. Is it your contention that a PhD in religious studies does not require expertise?

Or is it "special expertise"? Either way, he's a far better source than laconixsax, who has exhibited none.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. It doesn't require expertise in statistics

And you continue to behave childishly by making this an excuse to denigrate laconicsax.

[rug]

28. Almost every graduate programs requires an expertise in statistics.

Particularly thosed involving demographics, such as the study of religions.

And it is not necessary for me look for an excuse to denigrate laconicsax, whom you mentioned.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. No they might require facility in statistics, but not generally expertise.

In particular it is unlikely that his American studies or religion degrees required any math at all. Expertise in statistics would require at a minimum an applied math degree.

[laconicsax]

29. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Congratulations, rug.

You've managed to become a parody of yourself.

[rug]

30. QED

[laconicsax]

22. Prothero says it at the end of the piece.

In fact, a buried story here seems to be how Asian immigration may be fueling the rise of the “nones”: people who are religiously unaffiliated.

Of all the Asian Americans surveyed by Pew, 26% are unaffiliated, 22% are Protestant, 19% are Catholic, 14% are Buddhist, 10% are Hindu, 4% are Muslim and 1% are Sikh. And when asked whether religion is very important in their lives, only 39% of Asian Americans say yes, well below the 58% figure for the U.S. public as a whole.

Sociologists of religion have observed that immigrants often become more religious after arriving in the United States. So it could be that Chinese Americans, who are roughly half unaffiliated, will become more Christian or more Buddhist over time. But for now it seems that Asian immigration is doing more than making America wealthier, more educated, and more liberal.

It may also be making the United States less religious.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Yes, that's what I excerpted - 'could be' and 'may also be'

He's making a guess there, and the language is appropriately non-committal. With Asian Americans overall being less religious than the average American, then it's a fair guess that incoming Asian Americans are also less religious than the average American (and if the observation "that immigrants often become more religious after arriving" is correct and applicable in this case, then you expect new incomers to be even less religious), and so saying Asian immigration could be making the US less religious is reasonable. You may well be able to say the same about European immigration - since Europe is an area with lower religiosity than the US. But you're right, proper figures from data are needed to make this more than a possibility.

[laconicsax]

31. Well you shouldn't believe me--I don't have a PhD in religious studies.