Slashdot Mirror
Religious Affiliation Shrinking In the US
gollum123 notes new U.S. demographic data from the Pew Research Center which show that the percentage of Americans declaring affiliation with a particular religion has declined sharply since 2007. Americans identifying as Christian dropped from 78.4% in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Those describing themselves as atheist, agnostic, or simple having no affiliation took up most of the slack, rising from 16.1% to 22.8%. Members of non-Christian faiths collectively rose from 4.7% to 5.9%. Despite the overall decline, the demographics within the Christian group are getting much more racially and ethnically diverse. The willingness of respondents to marry outside their religious affiliation is also on the rise. The median age of unaffiliated adults is dropping, while the median ages of mainline Protestants and Catholics are rising. The study estimates that 85% of adults age 70 and over are Christian, while only 56% of adults ages 18-24 are Christian. They also say that each individual generation has shown a slight decrease in religious affiliation compared to their statistics in 2007.
Subject says it all.
This is very important, because religious wackos tend to be the ones against modern science and technology.
As far as I can tell technophobia is on the rise.
Ironically, echoing what was happening in the Gospel accounts, the modern religious establishments have to a large degree lost touch with the purpose of the law of Moses and the teachings of Jesus (and so on). People need to move away from blind tradition, look at all major religions that have survived more than a few centuries, and ask exactly why they have been successful in surviving. When it comes to the actual teachings, effort need to be applied to understand the meaning of those teachings in practical real world terms. That means not just explaining 'sin' in terms of 'disobedience' to 'God' without also fully explaining what 'sin', 'disobedience to God' and 'God' mean in real world practical terms, and why, say, 'sin' in then a problem. Too many people leave these words as poorly defined abstract jargon, and end up doing the eight-year-old English lesson thing of just formally rearranging the words according to rules of grammar.
For a mundane example:
There is a cat called Gerald, who has pink fur.
What colour is the fur of the cat?
The colour of the cat's fur is pink.
What is the name of the cat with pink fur?
The name of the cat with pink fur is Gerald.
Now look at some Biblish:
Sin is the result of our disobedience to God. We need Jesus because he died for our sins.
What did Jesus die for?
Jesus died for our sins.
What are our sins?
Our sins are the result of our disobedience to God.
Why are our sins a problem?
Because... because... erm... because they are the result of our disobedience to God, and that's clearly a bad thing.
And that's kind of where such discussions go downhill. The above discussion is an illustration of what happens when genuine understanding is absent, and this is all too often the case, especially amongst members of the religious establishments we have today. On the other hand, just doing the atheist thing often falls into the same traps, but beginning from a different set of basic sentences (there is probably no God; science can explain everything; what is the scientific evidence for the efficacy of prayer). Without fully exploring what meaning can be recovered from ancient teachings given suitable interpretation (and this ultimately must be done by first exhibiting real world practical scenarios where the meaning can be seen at work) we can neither hold them up as truth, nor dismiss them as backward fairytales. Unfortunately the masses are generally doing one or the other.
John_Chalisque
Even if people aren't following traditional religions, they're still adhering to ideologies that share many of the same traits as religion.
"Social Justice" is a superb example. It rallies its believers around the notion that everybody is equal, but some people (such as feminists, homosexuals, and transsexuals) are far more equal than everyone else.
Much like religion, "Social Justice" brings out inane, anti-social behavior in many of its adherents. This often shows itself as extreme hypocrisy, for example. Take the case of bullying. While decrying bullying as being awful, we see "Social Justice" followers target and harass alleged "bullies" with more zeal and hatred (also known as bullying) than the bullies themselves could ever manage to deliver.
Religions don't have to be hundreds or thousands of years old. Religions don't have to involve worshipping some sky deity. The religious mindset and behavior can very easily work with flawed, hypocritical concepts of "justice" to create modern religions like "Social Justice" that are far more harmful in practice than traditional religions were.
I'd say it is because of Christian inconsistencies. On the one hand they state that God's love is unconditional, on the other they say if you don't love God and follow His laws you will go to hell. There is no logic to religion.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
US is the only developed (or "more or less developed") country where religious nuts are still a majority.
no, I don't have a sig
Religion is essentially "I believe in a sky daddy because I'm ignorant of science."
Theology is even worse, take Islam:
"Hi, I'm Muhammad, I can't write, read or preform simple math. I'm totally illiterate, have epilepsy, like to wear diapers on my head and ride unicorns. Let me tell you about Islam where women are objects, female children, much like Christianity, are rape objects and science must be outlawed at all costs, oh and don't think about drawing a picture of me, or someone could kill you"
Christianity:
"Hi, I'm God, I'm a piss poor engineer who has anger issue and love S&M. I put two or one person in a garden, they had children who killed each other, I allowed incest, rape, murder and slavery. I got really pissed off twice, once I wiped out humanity using a fable which no ration human could believe. I then sent my son to die in the greatest sadomasochist grandstanding in history for being mad at my self, oh and remember to give all your money to the church, because I can't and won't ever show myself or preform miracles."
Mormonism is to stupid to even comment on and the same can be done for ALL religions.
So it's a good thing religious belief is falling, it made no sense back in the day and less sense now. You can't call yourself a logical adult human and believe that your sky daddy created the universe and left no evidence, that isn't rational.
And how far can you "tell", exactly? If you care about technology and science and rationalism so much maybe you should learn the difference between evidence and anecdotes.
I was surprised to see that all double blind tests are now showing liberals as more racist than conservatives. The average liberal now has a default "affirmative action" position and is racist against white people. This has been confirmed over and over again in studies, one even showed that liberals are far more likely to sacrifice a white person to save multiple black people than they are the other way around. So we gave truely crossed into delusional type unlogical thinking in politics as well.
These scary views of global warming and evolution are causing people to burn for eternity in hell for not believing in GOD!!
We need a pro God president to change the culture of this country so people stop thinking for themselves! It is only a matter of time before we anger him by voting for things Jesus did like providing healthcare and support for the poor and sick and our nation will fear his wrath.
Not sure if serious or just bad troll...
I find the GP's post to be a wonderful sarcastic post that encapsulates the ignorance and hypocrisy of the Evangelical Christians in the US - and the Republican base.
It's only a "Troll" to you because you don't like what is being said. But that's usually the case on the Net these days. If one doesn't like what's being said, just call them a "Troll" and be done with it. It's just as bad as exclaiming, "I'm offended!" It's just a cheap way to shut people up that you disagree with.
We live in a world of empiricism, where the concepts of faith and religion are - if not outright mocked and denigrated - are under constant pressure.
Not in the USA we don't. Go to certain parts of this country and openly mock religion and let me know how that works out for you. There are several states where it is technically illegal for me to hold public office if I am an atheist. There mere fact that close to 3/4 of people openly are affiliated (at least loosely) with some form of organized religion proves that your thesis is nonsense.
The benefits that faith brings to individuals and societies are trivialized.
Because in most cases they are trivial in comparison to the problems organized religion brings. There is no benefit that religion brings that necessitates belonging to an organized religion. We're supposed to forgive and forget all the misery, bigotry, tribalism and wars caused by religion just because they open some hospitals and food banks which are really just thinly disguised efforts to convert others to their tribe? I'm supposed to ignore the idiots trying to push their prayers in public schools or theology in the science classroom? I'm supposed to be ok with priests fondling children and never going to jail for it? I'm supposed to overlook the continual and ongoing wars between various religious groups across the world?
I believe people need faith in proportion to their misery.
And I disagree with you on this. People do not have a biological need to believe in fancy mythologies even in times of stress. It demonstrably is not required. Some find comfort in doing so (which is fine) but then some inevitably feel the compulsion to try to force their bizarre ideas on the rest of the world. If believing in something irrational helps you get through the day I have no problem with that as long as you keep it to yourself.
Belief in religion is belief in magic, hence anti-science. That's causation right there.
But then if you have to use another justification, would it be as efficient at starting a war ? I say not.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
While you don't need religion for these things, there can be no argument that religion frequently exaggerates these conflicts.
But is it religion per se, or is it the "tribalism" in general (which you later reference). Religion is just one way of defining who's "in my group," and it's a very, very old and common one. But that doesn't mean by getting rid of religion, we'll get rid of tribalism.
Religion is just as often used as an excuse for warfare or conquest that people in power already want to do anyway. It's an ideological way of rallying the people at times, but there are plenty of other possible ideologies one could use for the same purpose.
Look at the biggest killers in the past century -- Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, etc. They didn't need religion to justify their atrocities, and in fact many such figures have eschewed traditional religion (probably because megalomaniacs want a "cult of themselves" rather than implicitly acknowledging a "higher power").
You're right to be afraid of people who are "so fundamentally irrational and tribal and many of whom have a demonstrated propensity for violence," but both religious nuts and atheist nuts can demonstrate those features. Significant numbers of religious people in the world have activity tried to stop wars, to seek peace, to end bigotry, and to seek justice. Many of the civil rights causes that fought against bigotry and led to modern rights were done partly in the name of religion, too. That doesn't mean religion is all good, either -- it just means that it's an ideology, and like all ideologies it can be used for good or for evil, for rational or irrational purposes.
I'm not at all trying to defend religious nuts. But the reality is that there are nuts everywhere. And you, like many people who have bought into their own ideologies and beliefs, have lumped all religious people into one category. Ironic, isn't it? You accuse people of bigotry and irrational tribalism, when your arguments do precisely the same thing.
Are you claiming nothing bad has ever been done in the name of science?
I'm not aware of any wars or acts of genocide that have been conducted in the name of science. Of course I didn't bring science up at all so that's kind of irrelevant.
If you tried, could you find good things done in the name of religion?
Sure but almost always with disingenuous motivations usually related to marketing. Incredible amounts of charity work has been done by religious organizations. But this work is done at the end of the day as a marketing effort. Offering a hot meal to someone who is hungry is wonderful. Offering a hot meal and a bible is no longer charity - it is marketing. Doing a work of art celebrating something you personally believe in is fine. Putting it in a church to impress the public is marketing.
So yes I can find good works done in the name of religion but I have a much harder time finding good works done in the name of religion that lack ulterior motives. Good works done under false pretenses loses some of their luster.
I've never heard of mass killing done in the name of science, no.
There's also the Belgium Free Congo State and the eugenics movement. And I think it's only a matter of time before some environmentalist themed group decides to try involuntary population reduction on people they don't like.
Sentience is just what brains do. It is hard to describe the shape of a waterfall as it changes moment to moment but it isn't magic.
Whatever happened to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"? There is no reason to believe in the existence of any god, so until there is proof otherwise, forget it. That's not being close-minded, it's being rational. Also, we ARE human animals. Sentience isn't limited to just humans, either. First definition of sentience when I googled for it:
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively. Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience).
Animals are capable of both reasoning (solving puzzles, etc) and feelings. Not only that, they are also capable of picking up on the feelings of other species - ask any dog owner if their dog knows when they're depressed or frightened, or if they can tell when their dog is happy.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Not that I'm saying people should believe in sentience continuing after bodily death, I'm saying people overstep the mark when they claim that it must end and that's that and anyone who wonders otherwise is a religious nut. That's just where a scientific view becomes a scientism view, a belief in itself. So, remain open minded.
I wish I had mod points, because this is an insightful post. There is a line of thought that says that if something can't be observed, measured or defined scientifically then it doesn't exist. I think that way of thinking closes the mind. There is a lot we don't know or understand, so foreclosing the possibility of other states of being or consciousness is a mistake. We simply don't know, as you say.
Science and the scientific method have enabled us to understand a lot of the world around us. Its value is self-evident. But we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that it is the only tool we have for gathering knowledge. It can't answer every question, and that's okay.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Belief systems and the practice of science are as unrelated as music and athletics. There are plenty of excellent scientists that are devout believers in various religions. There are more who follow personal spiritual paths that are separate from any organized religion.
There is the unfortunate phenomenon of belief in Science, but that is not science. That is just another belief system, where pseudo-scientists believe that things science once discovered are somehow imbued with an eternal truth. The true practitioner of science knows that: firstly, every single scientific "law" might be overturned at any time by some new discovery that displays reality from a new and different point of view; and secondly, that Science as Religion is totally useless when it comes to guidance with any of the important decisions every one of us must make.
That second part is of direct concern to me, and to many other people. These decisions include whether to tell the truth or lie, whether to work for the common good or grab whatever you can get, whether honor and honesty are more important to the person than status and finding an easy way toward personal goals. Persons who believe in science have substituted Newton's laws and the periodic table for religious/spiritual principles, which just doesn't work. It seemingly gives them a framework that allows them freedom from the encumbrances of morals or ethics. But those encumbrances are part of being human, and without them these persons are just shits.
Will
Insightful? It's completely incoherent!
Belief in religion is belief in magic
I'll accept this premise just for fun. There's far too much ambiguity to consider it further.
hence anti-science
Science has nothing to say on the subject of magic. It is simply not within the scope of scientific inquiry. You'll also find that many practicing scientists are also religious. A recent survey found more than a third claim to "have no doubt about God’s existence", a surprisingly extreme position. Another found that, among AAAS members, more than half believe in "God or a higher power".
All the same, let's pretend we accept this as well and lament that our scientific institutions have not only been infiltrated, but completely overwhelmed by anti-science agents.
That's causation right there.
How on earth do you get "causation" out of the preceding? I can't even begin to guess what you conclude causes ... some other unknown! Even if we accept the previous absurdities, without reservation, this bizarre conclusion simply does not follow.
Required reading for internet skeptics
That second part is of direct concern to me, and to many other people. These decisions include whether to tell the truth or lie, whether to work for the common good or grab whatever you can get, whether honor and honesty are more important to the person than status and finding an easy way toward personal goals. Persons who believe in science have substituted Newton's laws and the periodic table for religious/spiritual principles, which just doesn't work. It seemingly gives them a framework that allows them freedom from the encumbrances of morals or ethics. But those encumbrances are part of being human, and without them these persons are just shits.
What's most interesting is that it's usually the most religious people who buy into the Republican Party's ideology, which includes "grabbing whatever you can get" and espousing Ayn Rand-style objectivist philosophy.
By contrast, the irreligious people are much more liable to vote for politicians who push social welfare programs ("working for the common good").
So the idea of religion giving people any kind of decent morals or ethics is blatantly false.
The "moderate" religious folks all carefully choose which parts of their holy writings to emphasize. But don't ignore the fact the Abraham, a guy Judaism, Christianity and Islam all revere, had to pass the test of being willing to kill his child if God wanted him to. Not a club I want to join.
Belief systems and the practice of science are as unrelated as music and athletics. There are plenty of excellent scientists that are devout believers in various religions.
While your second statement is obviously true, that does not help validate your first statement. Every limitation can be overcome, even being a religious scientist. I equate it as being similar to a professional basketball player who is under 6' tall. It is absolutely possible but it does impact your play.
Neil Degrasse Tyson has a great lecture which goes over how religious thought has impacted some of the greatest minds in history. He also writes about the concept in an article titled "The Perimeter Of Ignorance." As I understood his point, there have been times when great scientific scholars have stopped their pursuit of knowledge because they were content with the "God did it" explanation.
Newton stopped investigating the movement of planets once his current mathematical knowledge was put to the task of understanding how planets affect each others' orbits. This was the man who invented Calculus and wrote the Principia, but even he was guilty of not pushing forward the boundaries of science because he was content with the "God did it" answer. If not for his religious beliefs, perhaps he would have added inventing perturbation theory to his list of accolades and could have introduced it a century before Laplace did.
I am not arrogant enough to think I could keep religious beliefs from impacting my ability to investigate the world rationally if even geniuses like Newton couldn't.
The most troubling causational link he highlights is how the Islamic world lost its place as a center of scientific progress when a radical version of Islam took hold in the 12th century. Over the centuries that followed, the Islamic world went from being the place Algebra was invented to having 0.6% of Nobel laureates in Physics/Chemistry/Medicine with 23% of the world's population.
My favorite concept from his lecture is the danger of Revelation Replacing Investigation. It is at the core of why scientific thought and religious thought are at opposing sides, even though they can both exist within the same human being.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Agreed. Once enough of our species evolves beyond faith based idealism, our eyes will finally be opened to the true wonders of the universe. Science is the vehicle that will get us there, not faith. If you want a good look at what faith will do for you, you need look no further than any Theocracy based government and where their citizens stand in the big picture of things. We can either kill each other off in the name of some man-made imaginary ideology, or we can flourish as a species and maybe finally start understanding the wonders of our universe. In the long term, nothing positive has ever come from faith. Why folks continue to cling to it is beyond my ability to understand or explain.
Zealotry is probably the main issue. By and large, sports fans aren't that bad of people. But it doesn't take much searching to find evidence of riots and destruction from hard core sports fans, or people using sports as excuse to be terrible people.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
People voting to rob other people at gun-point (which is how taxes are collected) to pay for something, they themselves consider worthwhile are not "charitable" and driven not by ethics, but by simple greed: "I want a better road, I can not pay for it — ergo, I'll vote for forcing others to pay it for instead." It is so blatant, whenever a poor person speaks out against such "spreading the wealth around", he is accosted as "an idiot" acting against "his own interests". These arguments and accusations are proof, that the accusers' own motivation is not ethical, but egoistic, greed and envy — and that they are stupefied to find somebody else not sharing them.
Whereas the "grabbing whatever you can get" Republicans are happy to limit the "grabbing", to what's rightfully theirs, Illiberals aren't satisfied with such restrictions...
Your generalized hand-waving in support of this conclusion hereby destroyed, do you have anything better to offer as evidence?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.