There were some paranoid comments about Paradoxical Judgment of the Faithful by some readers.
Their reservations were that it is not possible to conclude that the majority of those that condemn Oscar Pistorius are Christian. Some even went as far as assuming that the article claims that atheists have no problem with what Oscar did. Strangely enough atheists were never mentioned in the article and neither were their opinion. It was all about the conflicting paradigms used by Christians to successfully recognize the gaps in Oscar Pistorius’ testimony but overlooking exactly the same types of gaps in the testimonies of the authors of the four gospels.
This article is not going to expand on the problem of the conflicting paradigms of Christians but is going to enlighten the reader about some interesting and basic statistical fundementals that lead to the conclusion that the majority of those that condemn Oscar are indeed Christian without physically counting them.
To explain this we can safely assume that there are at least four major but different opinions about Oscar Pistorius:
1. Believe he is guilty of murder with intent before court judgment.
2. Believe he is not guilty of murder with intent before court judgment.
3. Wait until the court has concluded its proceedings and accept the court’s judgment.
4. No opinion.
Based on the latest census results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa) 79.9% of South Africans are Christian.
The expectation is that 79.9% of those that agree with option 1 (Believe he is guilty of murder with intent before court judgment) would be Christian which happens to be the majority of those that agree with option 1.
However 79.9% of those that agree with option 2 (Believe he is not guilty of murder with intent before court judgment) would also be Christian which happens to be the majority of those that agree with option 2.
The same is also true for option 3 and 4. About 79.9% of those that agree with option 3 or option 4 respectively will also be Christian.
It is therefore not necessary to do a survey because this is statistically expected however, if someone is to claim that these percentages differ, for example that 99% of those that agree with option 1 are Christian such a person must proof the claim and explain why 99% Christians chose option 1 and not the expected 79.9%.
If one claims that less than 50% of those that agree with option 1 are Christian one needs to prove it and explain why the percentage is lower than the expected statistical value. Some readers have hinted in this direction but haven’t qualified why there would be such a great deviation from the expected statistical outcome. What they have done is question why there should not be a deviation in this direction of this magnitude. There is no reason why there is no deviation in this direction from the expected result. If there is a deviation there must be a very good reason for it and the author will be delighted if those readers in question will supply the reason.
The conclusion then is that the statistically expected majority of those that condemn or judge Oscar Prestorius before the court proceedings have concluded are indeed Christian. In actual fact we can expect that the percentage will be round about 79.9%. There is no reason why it should be any different. If however, less than 50% of those that condemn Oscar before the court judgment are Christian a good reason must exist and that needs be proved and explained.
A final note, these statistics are only applicable to South Africa. The ratio of Christians to other faiths and philosophies across the globe are different from the ratio in South Africa and people across the globe are not equally interested in Oscar Pistorius’ trial.