The U.S. Is Retreating from Religion
blogs.scientificamerican.com
blogs.scientificamerican.com
This isn't mean to be sarcastic, it's a statement about the special treatment that religion gets. Some of us simply do not agree that the best approach to this is to hold hands and discuss it like adults -- for all of the hard work and kindness you mention, there is also quite a lot of bad stuff too. It's far from obvious that the good outweighs the bad.
This is a sweeping generalization both about what religious beliefs are (for hundreds of religions) and also about how countless individuals uniquely interpret/feel about/understand those beliefs. I think that is very reductionist and incorrect position to hold. Is the bad stuff because of religion - or is it because humans? Humans have built up religion to what it is after all.
> It's far from obvious that the good outweighs the bad
It is also far from obvious that the bad outweighs the good. I never suggested anything about hand-holding.
Can prayer help with stroke or not? Is Israel special to God's plans or not? Are other religions corrupting the souls of children with false idols or not? Does God generally regulate the affairs of the earth, including its ecology and climate, or not? Does God have prescriptions on medicine and biological contamination or not?
Since the confidence of existence in supernatural interaction means that secular frameworks are ignorant, how are spiritually different groups supposed to discuss these issues?
Sure, we can debate the good/bad stuff, but only after it's acknowledged that the supernatural claims are false. After all, if the supernatural claims are true, that pretty much settles all the rest of the questions concerning religion.
Why specifically religious communities? As long as someone is doing good in the world, what difference does it make? People deserve respect so long as they themselves respect others.
That said, if they provide charity or other services while pushing their religious beliefs on folks, as is often the case for proselytizing religions (I'm looking at you World Vision), then they lose my respect. My spiritual beliefs should not be held hostage in exchange for charity.
When you ask someone like the Dalai Lama difficult questions such as ones about euthanasia or abortion - where traditional religious views and modern progressive outlook differ - you probably won't get an answer you'll like, but at the very least you'll receive a reasonable explanation behind it. And fortunately we're free and don't need to follow any religion. However, if you make the decision to follow it, you need to respect its rules, that's all.
In this context one can see why they choose to raise their children in such a way. It would be irrational not to teach them how to pray if this is such an important part of their lives. Would you wait for your kids to grow up before teaching them personal hygiene because it is ultimately their choice?
Ok, you can die because of religion too, in many, many countries.
But I guess it's not a good thing, no ?
Also, as a social service bureaucrat, my job would have been within a religious organization until 1875 or so. And probably better executed than under modern "scientific" paradigms.
I just hope we throw out the baby but keep the bathwater...
But is this anything more than a coincidence? It seems obvious to me that culture dominated by religion will produce religiously-motivated social institutions, and that historically-notable men and women will themselves be religious.
I often volunteer with Habitat for Humanity, and I find that the (majority religious) people there are kind, generous, and overall awesome people. I ascribe a lot of this to their religious convictions. It's also possible though that I'm getting a selection bias of the kindest Christians who are the type that not only go to church but go volunteer with Habitat because the church is doing it- but I do think that the church is a positive influence on them and the community.
I also think that there are relatively few institutions that promote virtuous, pro-social behavior with the effective and long-term viewpoint that a church can. I wish that there were more community organizations starting up that acted in a similar capacity to churches, to come fill in their shoes. Less focus on shaming outgroups and more focus on personal development and community.
I also think that religious people are not immune to this kind of thing, unfortunately.
Yes. You are.
I also think that there are relatively few institutions that promote virtuous, pro-social behavior with the effective and long-term viewpoint that a church can.
You mean, aside from, you know, the family unit, schools, the boy and girl scouts (yes, I realize there's a light religious component to those organizations but they are not, themselves, religious institutions), secular charity organizations...
Frankly, being blunt, your entire comment reeks of bias against atheists... which shouldn't be too surprising. In the US, atheists and rapists are seen as equally trustworthy.
The idea that a secular society can't "promote virtuous, pro-social behavior with the effective and long-term viewpoint" is patently absurd. And that religion unquestionably does so is equally absurd.
It's ironic, as Canada and Europe are far less religious than the US, yet far more "virtuous", providing far more in terms of support for the poor, the elderly, and the family unit, among other things.
But yes... religion, clearly that's the way to build a virtuous society...
But if you look at who's demographics are shifting older, a negative trend is why there is so much of a resugence of extreme variants of fundamentalism in the US. Fascism, monarchism, and theocratic proponents are very loud right now and visibility stunts from organizations like WBC and 1488-christian-identity people exist because fundamentalist religious folks feel this pressure very hard right now.
These folks know their ideology is failing to grow substantially, so they're trying to increase visibility and capture more disaffected, frustrated, or sympathetic people in their particular brand of self-sustaining fundamentalist thought.
Many of them have failed to form a cohesive and accepted national identity (the way mormonism has), so outrageous stunts like public displays of swastikas or protesting solider's funerals (because "gays aren't stoned or hung so god killed this solider") are really the easiest way to try and reclaim some prominence in American discourse.
More moderate religions are faring better because they focus on providing a sense of community without all those embarrassing and controversial fundamentalist tenants. I am no longer religious, but I have lots of friends who are happy in moderate churches that claim growth. We're even seeing advertisements in San Francisco for a specific kind of communal church with vague kinds of unitarian values, focusing on community. They're VC funded! They have an App!
I worry that people may tie their identities to political tribes more and more.
What communities provide a healthy sense of identity and belonging that are not religious or political?
Gaming, has large, relatively recent communities in Pokemon Go and DOTA 2. Similarly, the resurgence of the Star Wars franchise means a new generation of fans coming online.
I have not noticed that these entertainment focused communities result in service, though they are also not political.
Why do you assume that there will be a replacement? Could not community be declining as well?
Affiliation has very little impact on America's general religious behavior or culture. People that just affiliated but only went to church maybe once a year moved to more comfortable to say non-religious?
Church attendance for Protestant Churches is at an all time high. Protestant political power is at an all time high in America.
Trumpism has made the Protestant church morally bankrupt but that hasn't nor will it change the next generation of intrinsically religious people.
This plays into the Protestant/Evangelical narrative of being persecuted and dying breed. They love saying negative its the end of God in America in 20 years since the 70s. Even int he midst of the greatest religious explosion in American History. Just look up George Barna, that guy is a millionaire for twisting the statistics to make religion look like it is dying his whole life. He is the lied a ton and people still listen to him because they love gloom and doom.
I see people glad that religion is decreasing, but is there evidence that the evils of human nature are decreasing, or are they merely taking different forms?
Religions aren't the only social construct that has this weakness but a hierarchy that resists accountability can result in some pretty bad outcomes.
I would say that all organizations allow concentration of power, so that is beside the point.
Given that other social constructs have this weakness also, wouldn't that mean that the decline of religion would have no effect on the expression of the evils of human nature?
If you removed religion from human experience, would there would be no more beheadings? Or would the elements of human nature which result in beheadings simply find a different cultural element to attach themselves to?
To be honest, I believe what's killing the Protestants is the new faith in wealth. When someone drives a Bentley or Porsche, lives in a huge mansion and still portrays himself as a "man of God" it's just too much to swallow. Eventually even the dumbest of folks realize that the money they give to him/her is just making that individual wealthier and they're never going to get anything. It's truly the penultimate Ponzi Scheme. Except the folks at the bottom never get back a penny! And, the Feds aren't able to go after the perps at all due to "freedom of religion."
That sounds pretty good to me.
Modern western society has so much to thank Christianity for, it's a real shame if it ends up going this way.
When will social progress stop though, when is it complete? There are perhaps a lot of things wrong in the world but it's not clear to me that people can any longer fall back onto blaming various institutions (for opression ... etc.). Yet agitation seems to be increasing, despite the lack of institutional barriers. Indeed it seems to have moved on to targeting social demographics for 'progress' (the white male).
Progressives started off by dismantling the social engineering and traditions of the religious institutions, but that is largely complete. All that remains is to start their own social engineering project.
On one hand, religion is a large source of conflict around the world. Its restrictive norms make life uncomfortable for those who don't align to them.
On the other hand, religion codifies how to live a good life, and people with the same religion often share the same values and beliefs, making inter-community cooperation much easier.
I don't think it's a coincidence that at the same time our country loses its religion, it also loses its sense of community. I think both stem from our changing culture that has no real norms besides "think about yourself, give yourself a good life, and let other people figure out how to do that on their own." It's a shame, in a way.
It's associated with it, but that can be misleading; incompatibility of identity and ideology fuel conflict, and religion is often an important element of both. But identities and ideologies that are none or anti-religious also can drive conflict.
I think the interesting part comes from our (and i say our, as in, the HN demographic) tendencies to hold strict beliefs based only on (and limited by) our own perceptions.
The thing is, it comes at you when it comes at you, and you cant tell someone else why they should believe in something they cant see, feel, experiment with or experience.
I was an atheist, almost militant atheist, for most of my life... then my wife became spiritual, started doing tarot and stuff like that, doing reiki (energy healing) etc, and i was open to it, but didn't really buy into it. Then she started having mediumship abilities... and then I felt totally like it was kinda a crock... but then something ridiculous happened.
My father died before I was born, a few months before... She has supposedly been in contact with him, and i liked that as a form of comfort, but again, im a skeptic. Then she described a scene... she described the interior of a car, sitting in a field, with my mom in the passenger seat, from the view of the drivers seat. The car, after she described it to me, was an impala, and she got that it was a 62 model year... and said it was dark gray with one wheel white and the others black... and it was in a field of yellow and purple flowers, and my mom had a red shirt on and jeans... Ive never heard this story, i couldnt have possibly told her any of it, she doesnt speak to my mother, so she couldnt have gotten it from there... but i asked my mom, if they had an impala at one time, and he response was "yeah, it was a dark gray 62 impala with red interior" ... and i asked about the field, and she knew exactly where it was, and even the mis-matched tire... so, to me, I believe now, that there is more than we realize. Be it supernatural, be it a bug in the programming of a simulation we live in, be it just a natural form of energy we dont understand or cant perecieve... but there is something more...
But i dont tell you that story to convince you, or to justify my own beliefs (i have no need to justify them), but to show you that, until something happens to you that pulls your perspective, your personal perspective, so far out of line with your current beliefs, you will never believe, and you will be certain even... and thats the problem with spirituality or religion... you have to come to it yourself, which is near impossible to do, when the religions themselves are constantly trying to force people to believe...
I would argue that these are the circumstances under which it is most important to push back against claims that are manifestly, self-evidently false according to basic empirical criteria.
Which is fine, as far as it goes. I think there's an argument to be made against Scientism, however, where people are rejecting notions that aren't "manifestly, self-evidently false", but instead aren't even falsifiable. How does that make sense? How can someone take that position, and still consider themselves rational?
Some of the greatest names in the history of science were also mystics. (I'm not talking about Newton being an alchemist and drinking mercury; I'm talking about the likes of Bohm, Einstein, Schrödinger, &c.) We've, instead, decided to repudiate that kind of thinking, and I think that costs us, dearly. The number of scientists of faith, who do perfectly legitimate science but have to hide their beliefs, is staggering, and, frankly, offensive. We have failed if that's how we want to play.
Yes, defending the credulous from the predatory, a stated motivation of so many anti-religionists, is a valuable thing. It should be lauded. So very, very many of the anti-religionists I've met are profoundly smug about their beliefs, though. That's not valuable. That serves no-one. That is actively harmful.
Anything that creates a narrative where you're somehow "better than" the people around you, is mental garbage. It's an ego trap. It should be shouted down far more loudly than whether or not people believe in an invisible man in the sky who watches them masturbate, if that belief is not subsequently used to disenfranchise and dehumanize others — not least because that very "better than"-ness is the root of how we disenfranchise and dehumanize one another.
Hard atheists are often among the most vocally, militantly, confrontationally proselytizing people I've ever seen. The irony is really ugly.
EDIT: phrasing
Do you really think we know all of the forces at work, that we can perceive them or detect them with the tools we have?
Its rather arrogant to think that we know even "most" of how the universe works, let alone all of it... and if you can admit that we know very little overall, then the empirical data we do have has a lot less weight...
So this may be just a gradual move from organized religion to unorganized religion rather than a move from religion to non-religion.
(Hell, even the people who are part of an organized religion do that sometimes. I have a Catholic friend who believes in reincarnation. I guess that's how you get new religions.)
https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010/...
Insofar as the first part is true, those broadly held, super-ecumenical values aren't what belief is eroding in; the theological, cosmological, and eschatological beliefs and associated ritual is what people are abandoning, not values that are so broad as to be both foundational to “American civilization” (itself something of a parochial myth) and validly described as “Judeo-Christian”.
That the flow is in all directions between all three Abrahamic faiths (and not just those) is fairly firmly historically established.
George Washington's Farewell Address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell...
Suffice it to say, Murray's version of the "core of American civilization" is something I'd be very happy to see disintegrate. I doubt I'm the only one.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, with very good reason, has classified him a a White Nationalist https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...
The writings that I've read by him (which I admit, isn't much) can be summarized as "minorities are genetically inferior because... science." (and the subtext is a lot nastier)
I'll agree I want no part of whatever Charles Murray's vision of America should be. I also wouldn't classify any of his writings as "incredibly important," his writings on race are largely discredited.
Which is a shame, because the only real non-productive comment came from fourfaces which is a rarely used novelty account with -4 karma and the topic is interesting to discuss.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Your 'causes drama' point is closer to the mark. For whatever reason, the community here is less able to discuss religion substantively than almost anything else. This shows up not only as toxic flamewar-style comments but also as an upsurge in bad jokes and shallow quips.
I have my degree in Theology and I ran for Political Office so I guess no one to talk to :)
No, it doesn't.
OTOH, it does require that “evidence” be understood more broadly than just empiricism.
> Almost all religions make demands on the actions of their adherents, atheism almost by definition does not
Specific atheisms often do, though atheism as such (like theism as such) does not.
This is dogma preached by materialists, of course. The fact is that opposites are of the same nature. Theism and its opposite, atheism, are both belief systems. Neither of them is scientific. Vociferous denials notwithstanding.
This is a feature, not a bug? Otherwise what's the point?
Atheism is indeed the religion of man, who has set himself on his own throne, denied the existence of a Creator, and crowned himself god - deciding that HE will be the arbiter of right and wrong. The same forms of worship (investments of time, energy, money, etc) that can be devoted to the Divine are simply channeled inward in a self-righteous pursuit of independence.
Most organisations promoting atheism tends to explicitly associate with ideologies that sometimes pre-suppose atheism, but are not just atheism, such as humanism. E.g. the biggest "atheist" organizations in most countries tends to be the Humanist Associations.
To the extent that there are organizations etc. "just for atheism" rather than humanism, this tends to either be tied to ideologies that either encompass just small parts of atheists, e.g. "hard" atheists who express absolute certainty in the non-belief of God, or "radical" atheists who see theism as actively damaging and something to be fought. Those you could very well consider ideologies.
Another category are groups that band together not over atheism per se, but against religiously motivated discrimination, but most of these tends to focus on secularism, not atheism per se.
Calling atheism itself an ideology because of any of the above is ascribing far more to atheism than is actually there.
Saying that there are atheist ideologies where the absence of belief in a God is an important principle is true. But atheism on it's own is the simple absence of belief.
Please don't confuse "community" with "religion." Bronies also have those things you mentioned but not a single person would classify being a Brony as a religion.
(If you aren't familiar with the term, a Brony is an adult or teenaged male fan of the children's show My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_... )
Same with ideology, not all ideologies are religions. Believe that the Earth is flat is an ideology but not a religion even though personally having that ideology may be based on religious beliefs. Same with veganism.
When I google "religion", I get: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
It reminds me of when a friend once said, "World War II just happened", and I said, "Me tying my shoe just happened, World War II happened 70 years ago". It was both our faults for arguing about the definition of a word instead of both trying to understand each other. What my friend meant was that, since WWII, culture and education hasn't changed much, and another such disastrous event could happen again. Which is why I'm now asking you to rephrase your statement in a way I can understand your intent better.
Modern atheists came up with that definition. The fact is that opposites are of the same nature. Theism and its opposite, atheism, are both belief systems. Neither of them is scientific. At least, not yet.
Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. [1]
Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. [2]
[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion [2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism
You would do well to argue against the authors ideas rather than their words.
Bastardizing words, particularly those that have a prior established meaning to a minority community like atheists, is tyranny of the majority. It's not their fault that people don't know what atheist means and interpret the word incorrectly. If you reject that notion then I think you a) endorse a recursive loop where ignorant people never have to learn new vocabulary (or worse, get to make up definitions matching what they want to believe the other person is saying) and b) the bar to exchanging information gets set unreasonably high because speakers have to constantly define terms for their audience. There is some duty to learn and understand in a conversation. If you don't know what the words mean, look them up or don't get upset when corrected. That's how you have a conversation that progresses past semantics.
Some atheists do have ideologies that are related to their atheism, many others do not.
Certainty of non-existence of God is Ideology.
Maybe, but that's not what atheism means to most atheists.
Atheism is not believing in God(s). This is different from both saying "I don't know", like agnostics do and actively denying the possibility of existence in God.
Most of us, when we say "I don't believe in X" are not saying "I have absolute certainty that X does not exist". We're saying "I've not seen any reason to believe in X, so I don't". I'm not agnostic about the existence of Santa Claus - I don't believe in Santa Claus. But maybe there really is some guy living in some secret compound on the North Pole -- it is however so exceedingly unlikely that I'm not going to go around answering "I don't know" if someone ask.
Most atheists are "soft atheists" who fall in the category above, who if asked will say "God does not exist," but who if pushed will concede that just like I can't know for absolute certain that Russell's infamous teapot or Santa Claus doesn't exist, I can't absolutely rule out the existence of every conceivable definition of a God.
And this is not an ideology any more than the non-existence of Santa Claus is.
There are also "hard" atheists that insists that God 100% certainly does not, or can not, exist, and in those instances you might be right to call it an ideology. But they're a fringe - personally despite growing up among atheists I've never met one in person.
To try to stay on the subject of the article, I find it interesting that it's Protestants who are abandoning their faith which is most of the downward trend in the graphs presented. I find that makes sense as Protestants are generally less dogmatic and more questioning (at least historically they were from my understanding) than their Catholic brethren.
Another way to put it, I feel there are some structural differences between Protestants and Catholics which help to explain the downward trend in one, and less so in the other.
edits: bad grammar
This is nonsense, of course. It shows a definite predilection among atheists to deceive themselves and others. Atheism is definitely a belief. But go ahead and believe otherwise, if you know what I mean.
I'll also point out this is a novelty account with negative karma.
Nudity is not a set of clothing.
He's welcome to style what hair he has left.
Nudity is wearing the empty set of clothing.
In all seriousness though Atheism is still a belief system. It makes an assertion without the necessary evidence to fully back it up (which is both true and weirdly ridiculous). On the other hand Agnosticism is in itself removed from a specific belief system. It is an epistemological doctrine of sorts with both religious and non-religious applications.
I find that most people use the word atheism completely wrong and accidentally get caught in stupid semantic debates they themselves are responsible for falling into. If you believe their is no god, then your making some pretty wild jumps.
If you don't think we have sufficient evidence to disprove a God, but would totally bet it all that there isn't, then you should just say your agnostic and explain how that applies if necessary.