Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: jeremyp on November 29, 2022, 11:01:52 AM
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792408
Also, atheism is up to 37% and Muslims are over 6%.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792408
Also, atheism is up to 37% and Muslims are over 6%.
Just to note that's for England and Wales, not the UK.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792408
Also, atheism is up to 37% and Muslims are over 6%.
Just posted a new thread on this before I saw that you'd done the same Jeremy. Perhaps the mods can combine.
-
Just to note that's for England and Wales, not the UK.
Thanks. I've fixed the title.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792408
Also, atheism is up to 37% and Muslims are over 6%.
Actually atheism isn't up to 37% - the numbers ticking 'no religion' in the census are up to 37%. This will, presumably include atheists, but also people who are agnostic etc.
We are continuing to see the same trend in the census as in other surveys such as the Social Attitudes Survey, but the census lags other surveys that don't ask leading questions that imply that people have a religion.
-
2021 Census results on religion have been released:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021
The census shows a continuation in the decline in the numbers and proportion of people in England and Wales who describe themselves as belonging to a religion (despite the leading census question). The headlines are:
We are no longer a christian majority country (even in census christian terms) - in 2021 just 46.2% described themselves as christian, down from 59.3% in 2011 and 71.8% in 2001. This really is a huge and continuing decline which shows no sign of slowing.
The flip side being the numbers of people who are non-religious (even accounting for the leading question - in 2021 this is 37.2%, up from 25.2% in 2011 and just 14.8% in 2001.
Numerically minor religions, including islam and hinduism have increased but from a pretty low base.
-
2021 Census results on religion have been released:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021
The census shows a continuation in the decline in the numbers and proportion of people in England and Wales who describe themselves as belonging to a religion (despite the leading census question). The headlines are:
We are no longer a christian majority country (even in census christian terms) - in 2021 just 46.2% described themselves as christian, down from 59.3% in 2011 and 71.8% in 2001. This really is a huge and continuing decline which shows no sign of slowing.
The flip side being the numbers of people who are non-religious (even accounting for the leading question - in 2021 this is 37.2%, up from 25.2% in 2011 and just 14.8% in 2001.
Numerically minor religions, including islam and hinduism have increased but from a pretty low base.
I've reported this thread to the mods to get them to combine it with yours or delete it.
-
I've reported this thread to the mods to get them to combine it with yours or delete it.
I've added my original post to this thread, so fine to delete the other one.
-
Careful now Brethren, lest ye stray into the realms yeah, even of argumentum ad populum.
-
Careful now Brethren, lest ye stray into the realms yeah, even of argumentum ad populum.
Nope - Vlad, merely reporting factual information. But, of course in light of this factual information (and of course plenty of other factual information showing similar numbers and trends) it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the maintenance of special privileges for organised religion in general and christianity in particular when that no longer represents the norm within the country.
-
Nope - Vlad, merely reporting factual information. But, of course in light of this factual information (and of course plenty of other factual information showing similar numbers and trends) it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the maintenance of special privileges for organised religion in general and christianity in particular when that no longer represents the norm within the country.
No, You said just46% sign up as christians, but that the lesser percentage swing was huge.
Not sure that counts as factual but biased opinion of the significance. I merely therefore warn you of a tendency to strayfrom the narrow pathway.
What troubles me is what looks like the calling for the eradication of religion from the public forum, on such slender ground i.e a five percent drop below the majority position. That is dressing an ideological goal in a slanted view of the statistics
-
No, You said just46% sign up as christians, but that the lesser percentage swing was huge.
Not sure that counts as factual but biased opinion of the significance. I merely therefore warn you of a tendency to strayfrom the narrow pathway.
What troubles me is what looks like the calling for the eradication of religion from the public forum, on such slender ground i.e a five percent drop below the majority position. That is dressing an ideological goal in a slanted view of the statistics
Christianity is down 13 percentage points in 10 years. How is that not a huge decline?
Nobody has called for the eradication of religion. Professor Davy suggested that religious privilege is no longer justified. Personally, I don't think it was ever justified.
The only thing I would slightly quibble about in PD's original post is the statement "this really is a huge and continuing decline which shows no sign of slowing". I know there are only three data points, but the percentage drop between 2001 and 2011 was 17% and the percentage drop between 2011 and 2021 was 22%. the rate at which people are leaving the Christian faith is accelerating. The half life of Christianity is getting shorter. It's not showing no sign of slowing, it's showing every sign of accelerating.
-
Christianity is down 13 percentage points in 10 years. How is that not a huge decline?
If 17% is huge how can 46% not be huger and yet it seems to be an ''only''
Nobody has called for the eradication of religion. Professor Davy suggested that religious privilege is no longer justified. Personally, I don't think it was ever justified.
I mean eradicated from the public forum.
The only thing I would slightly quibble about in PD's original post is the statement "this really is a huge and continuing decline which shows no sign of slowing". I know there are only three data points, but the percentage drop between 2001 and 2011 was 17% and the percentage drop between 2011 and 2021 was 22%. the rate at which people are leaving the Christian faith is accelerating. The half life of Christianity is getting shorter. It's not showing no sign of slowing, it's showing every sign of accelerating.
Christianity has a half life? Not sure that's a proper analogy although Davey in manifold posts and you here look as though you think Christianity has been decaying somehow since it's inception.
By what process then do you think christianity will accelerate it's loss in the next ten years? Can we start talking about cultural non religion now or is it best to wait until non religion is in the majority?
-
If 17% is huge how can 46% not be huger and yet it seems to be an ''only''
Nobody has said 17% is huge in absolute terms.
We were discussing the decline in the number for Christianity, to the total proportion.
I mean eradicated from the public forum.
Nobody has suggested that either. We just want the special privileges rescinded.
Christianity has a half life?
Yes, why not? If you have a population of anything - Christians, radioactive atoms, whatever, and you can calculate the probability that any individual in the population will leave the population in a given time interval, that population will have a half life.
By what process then do you think christianity will accelerate it's loss in the next ten years?
No idea, but it's loss rate has been increasing so the fact that I don't know what causes it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
-
Actually atheism isn't up to 37% - the numbers ticking 'no religion' in the census are up to 37%. This will, presumably include atheists, but also people who are agnostic etc.
Copson and Dawkins always suspected that many were putting C of E who should have perhaps been putting ''No religion''.
-
Nobody has said 17% is huge in absolute terms.
We were discussing the decline in the number for Christianity, to the total proportion.
Nobody has suggested that either. We just want the special privileges rescinded.
Yes, why not? If you have a population of anything - Christians, radioactive atoms, whatever, and you can calculate the probability that any individual in the population will leave the population in a given time interval, that population will have a half life.
No idea, but it's loss rate has been increasing so the fact that I don't know what causes it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
But when does the secular view being the prime driver for policy and legislation become a special privilage for the secular view?
You talked about half life shortening that doesn't happen in radioactive decay so it looks like your analogy is having a short half life.
-
If 17% is huge how can 46% not be huger ...
You are confusing the level of decline with the absolute level. It is the level of decline which is huge. And actually it isn't 17% in the past 10 years but 22% - in other words the proportionate change in christians from 2011 to 2021.
That is a big shift whichever way you look at it. And the equivalent proportional change in those reporting no religion is an increase of 47% in 10 years.
-
But when does the secular view being the prime driver for policy and legislation become a special privilage for the secular view?
The whole point of secularism is that it is neutral with regard to religion or non-religion, no-one is privileged, nor discriminated against whether they are religious or not.
So to ascribe special privilege to secularism is the equivalent of claiming that moving from a position where men are privileged to one which embeds equality on the basis of sex is somehow providing a special privilege - it isn't as no-one is specially privileged.
-
What troubles me is what looks like the calling for the eradication of religion from the public forum, on such slender ground i.e a five percent drop below the majority position.
Where have I said that.
Secularism is about a level playing field where people aren't privileged or discriminated against based on whether or not they are religious. That doesn't mean religion is eradicated, nor that individuals cannot promulgate their religious views or non religious views, but that being religious (or non religious) does not earn you brownie points, so to speak, in terms of public policy. That isn't the case at the moment as there are many examples where a privilege is provided to religious organisations and individuals that is not afforded to non religious organisations and people. Examples include Lords membership, tax concessions, charitable status, exemption from equalities legislation, provision of educational services. I cannot think of any example where a non religious person or organisation receives a special privilege that isn't afforded to religious organisations or individuals.
-
Nobody has called for the eradication of religion. Professor Davy suggested that religious privilege is no longer justified. Personally, I don't think it was ever justified.
Indeed - it was never justified. However one of the arguments trotted out to justify the privileges, that we are a christian country, is clearly no longer true. It, of course, hasn't been true for many years but now the softest of soft religiosity - that of the census christian answering a leading question, has now dropped below 50%. So that, albeit desperate, justification has now gone.
My concern is that the country rather than shifting towards secularism at institutional and governmental level, shifts to something even less justifiable - the notion that to represent diversity in the country requires inviting all organised religions (rather than historically just CofE, or perhaps christian). Which ignores the rapidly increasing proportion of the population who even in census terms are non religious. Of course the proportion who have any meaningful engagement with any organised religion is probably nearer to 10%, yet it is the religious organisations that in reality represent perhaps one in ten of us who are trotted out in ceremonies, inquiries etc etc to 'represent' the country.
-
You are confusing the level of decline with the absolute level. It is the level of decline which is huge. And actually it isn't 17% in the past 10 years but 22% - in other words the proportionate change in christians from 2011 to 2021.
That is a big shift whichever way you look at it. And the equivalent proportional change in those reporting no religion is an increase of 47% in 10 years.
Yes, but how do you explain the just in just 46% of respondents identified as christian?
-
The whole point of secularism is that it is neutral with regard to religion or non-religion, no-one is privileged, nor discriminated against whether they are religious or not.
So to ascribe special privilege to secularism is the equivalent of claiming that moving from a position where men are privileged to one which embeds equality on the basis of sex is somehow providing a special privilege - it isn't as no-one is specially privileged.
How does the elimination of religion from the public forum not constitute a privilage for the non religious secularist?
The male and female analogy is poor because no one is suggesting the removal of anything from the public forum. Secularism demands it.
-
Where have I said that.
Secularism is about a level playing field where people aren't privileged or discriminated against based on whether or not they are religious. That doesn't mean religion is eradicated, nor that individuals cannot promulgate their religious views or non religious views, but that being religious (or non religious) does not earn you brownie points, so to speak, in terms of public policy. That isn't the case at the moment as there are many examples where a privilege is provided to religious organisations and individuals that is not afforded to non religious organisations and people. Examples include Lords membership, tax concessions, charitable status, exemption from equalities legislation, provision of educational services. I cannot think of any example where a non religious person or organisation receives a special privilege that isn't afforded to religious organisations or individuals.
Unfortunately there is no space on a census as far as I know to record who is secularist and who wants religion eliminated from the public forum. In other words, we don't know whether those people are in a majority
British secularism is indistinguishable from atheism and humanism IMV.
-
Yes, but how do you explain the just in just 46% of respondents identified as christian?
By reference to what the figure was when the same question was asked 10 years ago and 10 years before that. It is the direction of travel - a rapid decline that justifies 'just' as in 2022 just 46% of people identified as christian compared to 59% in 2011 and 71% in 2011.
-
How does the elimination of religion from the public forum not constitute a privilage for the non religious secularist?
So equality of pay regardless of whether a person is male or female is a special privilege for women is it Vlad, or privileging feminists? Complete non-sense.
The male and female analogy is poor because no one is suggesting the removal of anything from the public forum. Secularism demands it.
No it is a very good analogy because prior the process that aims to embed equality men held special privileges within the public form in many regards. But actually few of those privileges were as overt as those still afforded to religious organisation and individuals today.
The claim of 'removal from the public forum' is simply a sop to try to justify continued privilege. No-one is stopping anyone expressing their religious belief in public - the point is that the expression of religion, nor of lack of religion should have no bearing on the development of public policy in a manner that privileges people whether or not they are religious. It is all about a level playing field Vlad.
-
British secularism is indistinguishable from atheism and humanism IMV.
Well that just demonstrates your ignorance Vlad. I think you will find that some of the main 'asks' of secularism in the UK, e.g. removal of automatic seats for bishops, opposition to state-funded faith schools etc have very strong majority support, which will include support from people who aren't atheist, aren't humanist, and in many cases are actually religious (at least in census terms), if not actively.
-
So equality of pay regardless of whether a person is male or female is a special privilege for women is it Vlad, or privileging feminists? Complete non-sense.
No it is a very good analogy because prior the process that aims to embed equality men held special privileges within the public form in many regards. But actually few of those privileges were as overt as those still afforded to religious organisation and individuals today.
The claim of 'removal from the public forum' is simply a sop to try to justify continued privilege. No-one is stopping anyone expressing their religious belief in public - the point is that the expression of religion, nor of lack of religion should have no bearing on the development of public policy in a manner that privileges people whether or not they are religious. It is all about a level playing field Vlad.
Anyone? On an individual basis? That of course is a very individualistic view of religion, what of the church bazaar, or Christian aid week or Hindu procession or the Salvation Army?
The House of Lords looks like it’s finished on the grounds of Tory Sleaze so the lords spiritual looks on the way out. The education thing will foment a divide between moderate secularist and the swivel eyed antireligionists. Outside that, how far do you want to go with your eradication of religion in the public forum?
Under my own scheme the non religious would get 37% of the 23 seats and Christianity 46%.
-
Anyone? On an individual basis? That of course is a very individualistic view of religion, what of the church bazaar, or Christian aid week or Hindu procession or the Salvation Army?
Of course religious people can get together and plan and participate in organised activities in exactly the same manner as non religious groups. But that is the key point - in exactly the same manner, level playing field. So if a church can organise a bazaar, so should a health club or a school or a community group under the same rules. If a christian charity can organise a charity collection then that should be under exactly the same rules as a non religious charity. If Hindus want to organise a procession aligned to their religion it should be under the same rules as a procession organised by a non religious group.
But the point is that currently there are plenty of examples where religious groups and individuals are afforded privileges under the law that don't apply to non religious groups - that's the issue.
-
Under my own scheme the non religious would get 37% of the 23 seats and Christianity 46%.
But no-one (except you) is suggesting that a revised second chamber should have membership determined on the basis of the census religious question. That would be bonkers, not least because other types of identity are available, and of course for the vast majority of people those other forms of identity are much more important than their nominal census religion.
But, for the sake of arguments, if you actually went down that route to be representative you'd actually need 37% non religious people, 40% nominally christian (probably reflecting their upbringing and heritage) but not actually committed enough ever to attend christian worship and 6% worshipping christians. That would better represent England and Wales.
-
Of course religious people can get together and plan and participate in organised activities in exactly the same manner as non religious groups. But that is the key point - in exactly the same manner, level playing field. So if a church can organise a bazaar, so should a health club or a school under the same rules. If a christian charity can organise a charity collection then that should be under exactly the same rules as a non religious charity. If Hindus want to organise a procession aligned to their religion it should be under the same rules as a procession organised by a non religious group.
But the point is that currently there are plenty of examples where religious groups and individuals are afforded privileges under the law that don't apply to non religious groups - that's the issue.
An exaggerated issue and as we have seen eradication from the public forum is an ideological goal rather than anything that can be satisfied by anything short of total as you will find out once the House of Lords is consigned to the litter bin.
What do you do about those who want a literal interpretation of freedom from religion?
I can understand how the exaggeration has come about. The people at the top of secularising movements are transatlantic celebrities who see the US a lot
-
Perhaps it would have been useful to have a subquestion to ask those who said they had a religion the extent to which they were active/frequent participants in religious observances, such as attending churches and mosques etc, so as to indicate the difference between the nominally religious from those who were actively religious.
-
But no-one (except you) is suggesting that a revised second chamber should have membership determined on the basis of the census religious question. That would be bonkers, not least because other types of identity are available, and of course for the vast majority of people those other forms of identity are much more important than their nominal census religion.
But, for the sake of arguments, if you actually went down that route to be representative you'd actually need 37% non religious people, 40% nominally christian (probably reflecting their upbringing and heritage) but not actually committed enough ever to attend christian worship and 6% worshipping christians. That would better represent England and Wales.
It will be moot very soon, i’m not going to get my Lords world view and you are not going to get your successful Humanist campaign to rid the Lords of the bishops.... it’s all going.
It seems you still have a job persuading those in the closet to come out as non religious. What’s the problem?
-
Perhaps it would have been useful to have a subquestion to ask those who said they had a religion the extent to which they were active/frequent participants in religious observances, such as attending churches and mosques etc, so as to indicate the difference between the nominally religious from those who were actively religious.
Some religions observe at home or at work. I’ve worked with colleagues who brought prayer mats in. And then there is praying and being in church...which only happens for many one day a week.
It depends then how you are defining religion and should it be the non religious or the religious who get to do that?
-
But when does the secular view being the prime driver for policy and legislation become a special privilage for the secular view?
I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "secular".
You talked about half life shortening that doesn't happen in radioactive decay
Correct. Imagine that Christianity has a decay rate that is faster than exponential decay. That's how serious the problem is.
-
Yes, but how do you explain the just in just 46% of respondents identified as christian?
Actually, when you consider how the census is conducted, the 46% becomes even more wobbly - never mind PD's accusation of leading questions. Typically, one person fills in the census for the entire household. If you are a Christian man and you know that your wife and three children dutifully attend church every week with you, what are you going to put down for their religions? For the 1971 and 1981 censuses, my parents' household would have shown four Christians, but I'm sure my brother was really non religious even then.
-
An exaggerated issue and as we have seen eradication from the public forum is an ideological goal rather than anything that can be satisfied by anything short of total as you will find out once the House of Lords is consigned to the litter bin.
We're discussing religion, it has to be about ideologies, because there is nothing else. It's not like you can point to the evidence...
As things stand, we have an explicitly established sect of a one particular take on one particular group of religions, and whilst the (current) occupants of that sect might claim that their priveleged places in the Lords are to represent 'all religion', not only is there nothing compelling that, but that's also increasingly giving special voice to a diminishing overall group (the religious), even if you take them at their word. It still fails to address why 'religion' is special enough to warrant different treatment in parliament from every other concern, and even the 'it's important to a large number of people' argument is starting to fail.
What do you do about those who want a literal interpretation of freedom from religion?
Try to accommodate their desires as far as possible without unduly impinging on anyone else's freedoms, just like we strive to do with, for instance, people who want to discriminate in employment because their invisible friend doesn't like certain groups.
O.
-
I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "secular".Correct. Imagine that Christianity has a decay rate that is faster than exponential decay. That's how serious the problem is.
I certainly think the seriousness of this is a topic of discussion.Since you have raised it I wonder in what sense you think it’s serious, given the opportunities here for argumentum ad populum.
-
I certainly think the seriousness of this is a topic of discussion.Since you have raised it I wonder in what sense you think it’s serious, given the opportunities here for argumentum ad populum.
It is serious because it means that in about 30 years time, there will be no people in England or Wales identifying as Christian.
-
The Roman Catholic church in particular has seen several rises and falls throughout its history. It would be wrong to presume that the current decline in Christianity will continue on a downward trend. Considering the constant bombardment of secular views on social media I am heartened that almost half our population still consider themselves to be Christian. I have faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to ensure the survival of the Christian faith until the second coming.
I will be with you always, even until the end of time
Matthew 28:20
-
It would be wrong to presume that the current decline in Christianity will continue on a downward trend.
I think if you actually understand the reasons for the decline in the UK then you would understand that this will continue for decades.
The only caveat being immigration which certainly sured up catholic mass attendance briefly in the years following the liberalisation of immigration from, largely, Poland. This didn't produce an increase in mass attendance, but stopped its decline for a few years, but then the decline started again as immigration levels stabilised.
-
It is serious because it means that in about 30 years time, there will be no people in England or Wales identifying as Christian.
Is that a problem for you? I think that’s an unlikely scenario. I’d rather go with Davey’s 6% than nobody. That will depend on 40% of the adult population coming out as non religious. What further will entice them to do that?
-
I think if you actually understand the reasons for the decline in the UK then you would understand that this will continue for decades.
The only caveat being immigration which certainly sured up catholic mass attendance briefly in the years following the liberalisation of immigration from, largely, Poland. This didn't produce an increase in mass attendance, but stopped its decline for a few years, but then the decline started again as immigration levels stabilised.
I tend to go with the Copson/Dawkins analysis on nominality and they have been successful in persuading a more honest Census response.
But what that might mean is that they may have had the larger fraction of the new non religious already.
-
The Roman Catholic church in particular has seen several rises and falls throughout its history. It would be wrong to presume that the current decline in Christianity will continue on a downward trend. Considering the constant bombardment of secular views on social media I am heartened that almost half our population still consider themselves to be Christian. I have faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to ensure the survival of the Christian faith until the second coming.
I will be with you always, even until the end of time
Matthew 28:20
Given the continued decline that these results show it looks like this 'Holy Spirit' you mention has lost its touch - so it looks like you have faith in something that is failing.
-
The Roman Catholic church in particular has seen several rises and falls throughout its history. It would be wrong to presume that the current decline in Christianity will continue on a downward trend. Considering the constant bombardment of secular views on social media I am heartened that almost half our population still consider themselves to be Christian. I have faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to ensure the survival of the Christian faith until the second coming.
I will be with you always, even until the end of time
Matthew 28:20
When the Roman Catholic Church was hiding and covering up for child rapists, was the 'Holy Spirit' having a long lie?
-
Given the continued decline that these results show it looks like this 'Holy Spirit' you mention has lost its touch - so it looks like you have faith in something that is failing.
I think it's wrong to liken something like God, to something like scottish nationalism.
We know the nation is failing since it has thrown up Brexit and Boris Johnson and the like. There are relationship difficulties all round.. Pubs are closing, Hospital wards are closing, what isn't closing down? The land of irreligious milk and honey failed to materialise.
-
Actually atheism isn't up to 37% - the numbers ticking 'no religion' in the census are up to 37%. This will, presumably include atheists, but also people who are agnostic etc.
We are continuing to see the same trend in the census as in other surveys such as the Social Attitudes Survey, but the census lags other surveys that don't ask leading questions that imply that people have a religion.
I thought it was a binary position. You either believe in a god or gods or you don't. Agnostic is not inbetween as there is no inbetween?
-
I thought it was a binary position. You either believe in a god or gods or you don't. Agnostic is not inbetween as there is no inbetween?
It's the Black and white minstrel show.
-
I think it's wrong to liken something like God, to something like scottish nationalism.
We know the nation is failing since it has thrown up Brexit and Boris Johnson and the like. There are relationship difficulties all round.. Pubs are closing, Hospital wards are closing, what isn't closing down? The land of irreligious milk and honey failed to materialise.
So in the 2000 years of Christianity, where and when was the golden age?
-
It's the Black and white minstrel show.
Do you think there is a half way position?
You either accept it, or you don't.
If you are undecided, then you don't.
-
Do you think there is a half way position?
You either accept it, or you don't.
If you are undecided, then you don't.
I think you can be in a state of not knowing because you are not convinced either way.
Atheism or theism demand commitment and a leap of faith. You have struck out on your chosen path with conviction it seems.
-
I think it's wrong to liken something like God, to something like scottish nationalism.
Smashing - so who is making this bizarre comparison?
We know the nation is failing since it has thrown up Brexit and Boris Johnson and the like. There are relationship difficulties all round.. Pubs are closing, Hospital wards are closing, what isn't closing down? The land of irreligious milk and honey failed to materialise.
So, not a good advert for this all-loving and omnipotent 'God' of yours then.
-
I think you can be in a state of not knowing because you are not convinced either way.
Atheism or theism demand commitment and a leap of faith. You have struck out on your chosen path with conviction it seems.
Why did you switch belief in BR's post for knowledge?
-
Why did you switch belief in BR's post for knowledge?
If it helps.....insert it yourself
-
I think you can be in a state of not knowing because you are not convinced either way.
Atheism or theism demand commitment and a leap of faith. You have struck out on your chosen path with conviction it seems.
Agreed, but as you say the subject was Belief not knowledge.
You can vasilate between believing one day and not the next, but at any one time you either believe or you don't. There is no halfway position.
-
Smashing - so who is making this bizarre comparison? It's you who are equating God with something that's failing
-
Agreed, but as you say the subject was Belief not knowledge.
I'd have to ask you about the metaphysical mechanics of being an agnostic atheist.
-
If it helps.....insert it yourself
ok then. You are bored with sexually assaulting children so you decided to lie on here.
-
I'd have to ask you about the metaphysical mechanics of being an agnostic atheist.
You are an atheist.
-
You are an atheist.
What's going on? seems like a collective malfunction in the atheist central brain and self control circuits...i'll come back when the technician has been.
-
What's going on? seems like a collective malfunction in the atheist central brain and self control circuits...i'll come back when the technician has been.
Is that when you have stopped screwing children?
-
I think you can be in a state of not knowing because you are not convinced either way.
I agree that there is a state of 'undecided' - it's just a shame that it's been misnamed as 'agnostic' which already has a meaning.
Atheism or theism demand commitment and a leap of faith.
No, atheism doesn't require a 'leap of faith' - if you're a gnostic theist then you're of the opinion that you've not made a leap of faith, either.
O.
-
I agree that there is a state of 'undecided' - it's just a shame that it's been misnamed as 'agnostic' which already has a meaning.
No, atheism doesn't require a 'leap of faith' - if you're a gnostic theist then you're of the opinion that you've not made a leap of faith, either.
O.
There's a state of 'undecided' between whether you believe in a god or not? How would that work?
-
I thought it was a binary position. You either believe in a god or gods or you don't. Agnostic is not inbetween as there is no inbetween?
Believing in God and having a religion are not synonymous.
Also, I think there are people who are undecided about whether there is a god or not. Would you class them as atheists? I probably would, but I'm undecided.
-
Some religions observe at home or at work. I’ve worked with colleagues who brought prayer mats in. And then there is praying and being in church...which only happens for many one day a week.
It depends then how you are defining religion and should it be the non religious or the religious who get to do that?
Oh dear the tired old desperate 'believing but not belonging' non-sense. The notion that some apologists try to use to suggest that although church attendance is dropping, belief is alive and well with people praying in their homes rather than going to church. Demonstrated to be completely untrue by a number of studies. All aspects of religiosity - nominal affiliation (e.g. census christians), belief (e.g. whether people actually believe the tenets of christianity, importance of religion etc) and belonging (actual participation in organised religious activities) are declining at a similar rate.
You do realise Vlad that for every claimed home prayer, I can trade you a church attender who doesn't belief a word of it but goes along out of tradition, or to chat with friends afterwards, or because they like the music.
-
The Roman Catholic church in particular has seen several rises and falls throughout its history. It would be wrong to presume that the current decline in Christianity will continue on a downward trend.
There you go AB - scroll down to the graph. Obviously ignore the final point as this is covid affected.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bishops-tell-catholics-to-end-wfh-thats-worshipping-from-home-mw3qjxrrd
Looks to be a continuous downward trend since 1960 - and given that these are absolute numbers and the population has grown the decline in % of the population terms is even greater. And as I mentioned previously if you understand why the decline is happening you will recognise that it will necessarily continue for decades, unless there is massive immigration of mass-attending catholics.
-
I think you can be in a state of not knowing because you are not convinced either way.
Atheism or theism demand commitment and a leap of faith. You have struck out on your chosen path with conviction it seems.
I see it as a statement of your position on the existence of God. if you believe in that then you are a theist, if you don't you are an atheist, so no leap of faith or conviction. I know that the definition of atheism is disputed though. The unsure position is surely that sometimes you do believe, sometimes you don't. At any point in time you are atheist or theist but you don't hold to a particular position come what may but it changes.
-
I thought it was a binary position. You either believe in a god or gods or you don't. Agnostic is not inbetween as there is no inbetween?
Probably is, and for those that think about it more deeply atheism and agnosticism relate to different things, belief and knowledge respectively. But most people won't have given this the kind of thought those on this board have. In more general parlance agnosticism is don't know or don't care.
But actually all this is irrelevant - the census asks about religion, not about belief in god.
-
What's going on? seems like a collective malfunction in the atheist central brain and self control circuits...i'll come back when the technician has been.
What's difficult?
If you are an agnostic atheist, then you are an atheist.
If you are an agnostic theist, then you are a theist.
The gnostic bit is about a claim of knowledge so completely irrelevant.
-
What's difficult?
If you are an agnostic atheist, then you are an atheist.
If you are an agnostic theist, then you are a theist.
The gnostic bit is about a claim of knowledge so completely irrelevant.
Absolutely - and unless we are a bit dim, or really arrogant, then we are all agnostic - none of us actually know whether god exists or not (hence the need for belief/faith). So we are all really agnostic theists (don't know but believe god exists) or agnostic atheists (don't know but do not believe god exists).
I suspect there are some people who are on the fence on belief, either because they vacillate and/or are genuinely uncertain regarding their belief or not, or more likely because they don't care and don't really consider the matter at all.
-
I'd have to ask you about the metaphysical mechanics of being an agnostic atheist.
You have a claim of god(s) that I find unconvincing, therefore I'm an atheist. The 'metaphysical' struggle to disprove god(s) is well documented, so in the absence of absolute knowledge I remain agnostic.
This really isn't very difficult to grasp, I would have thought.
O.
-
There's a state of 'undecided' between whether you believe in a god or not? How would that work?
Some people operate in a more 'vague' headspace than I do - it might be that from day to day the balance of evidence seems to waver, or it might be that both sides sound convincing when they're listening to them, and they therefore aren't that clear on their own thinking.
As some with a very neurodivergent family, I'm aware that we not only all have a different set of beliefs and understandings, but that we don't all operate on the same mental architecture - whilst I'm quite black and white in my thinking, I know people who are far more ready to accept a sort of internal grey area, and I can imagine that this is one area that might fall within some of those grey spaces.
I don't necessarily understand it, but I can accept the possibility.
O.
-
Some people operate in a more 'vague' headspace than I do - it might be that from day to day the balance of evidence seems to waver, or it might be that both sides sound convincing when they're listening to them, and they therefore aren't that clear on their own thinking.
That may be true for some people. But I think there are plenty of people who simply don't give it a second thought - so they really have no idea whether they belief in god as they've never really thought about it, and frankly don't care as the whole notion seems completely irrelevant to their lives.
-
I tend to go with the Copson/Dawkins analysis on nominality and they have been successful in persuading a more honest Census response.
But what that might mean is that they may have had the larger fraction of the new non religious already.
Nope - that isn't the reason as other studies using a less leading question and therefore without any need for a campaign for honest response have found similar declines (albeit typically with a greater proportion of non religious) e.g. BSAS.
Here is a hint:
1. Are the oldest generation more religious than the youngest generation.
2. Are the oldest generation more likely to die than the youngest generation
3. Do people typically become more or less religious as they get older.
I suspect questions 1 and 2 will be obvious to you Vlad. I suspect you will make a rookie error on question 3 as you misinterpret the explanation for your answers to questions 1 and 2.
-
Nope - that isn't the reason as other studies using a less leading question and therefore without any need for a campaign for honest response have found similar declines (albeit typically with a greater proportion of non religious) e.g. BSAS.
Here is a hint:
1. Are the oldest generation more religious than the youngest generation.
2. Are the oldest generation more likely to die than the youngest generation
3. Do people typically become more or less religious as they get older.
I suspect questions 1 and 2 will be obvious to you Vlad. I suspect you will make a rookie error on question 3 as you misinterpret the explanation for your answers to questions 1 and 2.
I think I've said I prefer your prediction that only 6% will respond as christian in a few census time rather than JeremyP's even more dismal but unlikely 0%.
However the census asks about religious affiliation so the 6% is going to be bolstered by nominals and believers but non attenders ( people with Kids, People with Jobs, people just too shagged out at the end of the week ) which segues us into your question of the old and the young.
Anecdotely i've always known elderly people returning to church, widows and the like since there is guaranteed company and i've known people return with age because they have thought about mortality and what not. Take away social services and elderly care and I think you may find that people will drift back to churches. Remember, you are talking about sociological surveys and giving them the predictive power of pure science
As for the young, I think they are a constant surprise so I don't think we can ascribe social surveys the predictive power you are giving them.
Finally, triumphalism on the part of anti religionists is a thing. I would move you have it, JeremyP has done it with his predicted no one will be a christian and Simon Jenkins of the Garden who, at 46% of census responders identify as Christian has suggested that the church hand all churches over to local councils. That is ideology smuggled in under the guise of spun statistic.
But then Jenkins knows that churches are often refuges in times when the state lets people down and wants to nationalise and secularise hope although we know that the councils would shut the churches down like libraries and other utilities and sell them off for houses
I agree that there is a decline in christianity both in this country and else where However it is a very British decline, alongside that of health provision, politics, pubs, giving a shit about the number of people who died of Covid. I understand though that ''The young voted for Matt Hancock'' on I'm a celebrity get me out of here.
-
That may be true for some people. But I think there are plenty of people who simply don't give it a second thought - so they really have no idea whether they belief in god as they've never really thought about it, and frankly don't care as the whole notion seems completely irrelevant to their lives.
I think they are know as apatheists. I understand they are not interested in identifying as atheists or humanists etc. Not sure if they co relate with the people who aren't bothered about politics, want that to just go away and think they are all as bad as each other
As the man said people are identifying less with religion but aren't showing willingness to embrace what Richard Dawkins has to offer.
-
I think I've said I prefer your prediction that only 6% will respond as christian in a few census time rather than JeremyP's even more dismal but unlikely 0%.
However the census asks about religious affiliation so the 6% is going to be bolstered by nominals and believers but non attenders ( people with Kids, People with Jobs, people just too shagged out at the end of the week ) which segues us into your question of the old and the young.
I think you are misinterpreting what I said.
6% is broadly the number of people who attend church weekly. This is a little out of date so numbers now are probably a little lower than that now and between the two largest denominations, CofE and RCC weekly church attendance is roughly 1.5M, which represents about 2.5% of the population.
But attendance is dropping at a similar rate to 'census' christian affiliation - see data in previous post on RCC and you get similar declines for most other denominations (except some very small ones that impact little on overall attendance).
So what will happen over the next couple of decades - well christianity won't vanish, but every aspect of christian religiosity (census affiliation, belief/importance of christianity, attendance) will continue to decline. Likely this will be at similar rates to what we have seen over the past 20 years. So I'd anticipate (and you can be pretty confident on this if you understand why numbers are declining) that by say 2040 we'd have about 30% of the population saying they are census christians, with perhaps just 3% regularly attending church.
These numbers are, of course, not zero but we will probably end up with a situation where worshiping christians aren't that disimilar in numbers to worshiping muslims. But in both cases these will be a tiny minority, with the vast majority having no meaningful engagement with any religion.
-
Anecdotely i've always known elderly people returning to church, widows and the like since there is guaranteed company and i've known people return with age because they have thought about mortality and what not.
Anecdotally - I've always know elderly people who used to go to church when younger but stopped later in life - often they went when their kids were younger, probably because they thought it important when their kids were growing up. But once the kids reached adulthood they no longer felt the need to go and stopped.
But anecdotes aren't worth a bean when trying to determine whether people become more religious as they get older or not - what you need is high quality research. And of course this has been done - so called cohort studies that follow cohorts of people across many years to look for changes in behaviour.
And what do these studies show in the UK. Well, that once people reach adulthood there is very little change in religiosity as people get older. A 25 year old church-goer becomes a 50 year old church-goer who becomes a 70 year old church-goer. A 25 year old non-church-goer becomes a 50 year old non-church-goer who becomes a 70 year old non-church-goer. There is no evidence that people get more religious and become more likely to go to church as they get older. In fact if there is any effect, and it is pretty marginal, overall people get slightly less religious and less likely to go to church as they get older.
The reason why churches are full (well actually not full, but you get my point) of elderly people isn't because these people have started going to church later in life. Nope they were always church goers. But the point is that today's 70 year olds were far more religious and more likely to go to church when they were 30 back in 1980 that today's 30 year olds. That's why the demographic of churchgoers is elderly, not because people change in religiosity as they get older. And that is why you can be confident that the decline will continue for decades as the most religious cohort (the elderly) die and are replaced by the least religious cohort (the youngest). For the decline to stop you'd need the current twenty-somethings to suddenly become as religious as their grandparents - and that just isn't going to happen.
-
Anecdotally - I've always know elderly people who used to go to church when younger but stopped later in life - often they went when their kids were younger, probably because they thought it important when their kids were growing up. But once the kids reached adulthood they no longer felt the need to go and stopped.
But anecdotes aren't worth a bean when trying to determine whether people become more religious as they get older or not - what you need is high quality research. And of course this has been done - so called cohort studies that follow cohorts of people across many years to look for changes in behaviour.
And what do these studies show in the UK. Well, that once people reach adulthood there is very little change in religiosity as people get older. A 25 year old church-goer becomes a 50 year old church-goer who becomes a 70 year old church-goer. A 25 year old non-church-goer becomes a 50 year old non-church-goer who becomes a 70 year old non-church-goer. There is no evidence that people get more religious and become more likely to go to church as they get older. In fact if there is any effect, and it is pretty marginal, overall people get slightly less religious and less likely to go to church as they get older.
The reason why churches are full (well actually not full, but you get my point) of elderly people isn't because these people have started going to church later in life. Nope they were always church goers. But the point is that today's 70 year olds were far more religious and more likely to go to church when they were 30 back in 1980 that today's 30 year olds. That's why the demographic of churchgoers is elderly, not because people change in religiosity as they get older. And that is why you can be confident that the decline will continue for decades as the most religious cohort (the elderly) die and are replaced by the least religious cohort (the youngest). For the decline to stop you'd need the current twenty-somethings to suddenly become as religious as their grandparents - and that just isn't going to happen.
This is only tangentially related but I can't resist telling this story.
The demographic for Brexit voters in 2016 skewed towards older people. There's often an assumption that you get more insular as you get older. However, in 1975 when the last European referendum, the demographic for leaving the Common Market skewed younger. Why? Well the simple answer is that it's the same people. There's no overall transformation of views as you get older.
-
This is only tangentially related but I can't resist telling this story.
The demographic for Brexit voters in 2016 skewed towards older people. There's often an assumption that you get more insular as you get older. However, in 1975 when the last European referendum, the demographic for leaving the Common Market skewed younger. Why? Well the simple answer is that it's the same people. There's no overall transformation of views as you get older.
Spot on.
It is a common misconception that the oldest were always the least in favour of the Common Market/EU, when actually it was the youngest who were least in favour in 1975 (probably because they had no experience of the war and really poor european relationships) - and of course that most sceptical cohort in 1975 became the most sceptical cohort in 2016.
Similarly people often think people get more religious as they get older - certainly in the UK there is no evidence for this whatsoever.
-
Some views from letters in The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/02/i-couldnt-pretend-any-more-readers-on-why-they-left-the-christian-faith
-
I think you are misinterpreting what I said.
6% is broadly the number of people who attend church weekly. This is a little out of date so numbers now are probably a little lower than that now and between the two largest denominations, CofE and RCC weekly church attendance is roughly 1.5M, which represents about 2.5% of the population.
But attendance is dropping at a similar rate to 'census' christian affiliation - see data in previous post on RCC and you get similar declines for most other denominations (except some very small ones that impact little on overall attendance).
So what will happen over the next couple of decades - well christianity won't vanish, but every aspect of christian religiosity (census affiliation, belief/importance of christianity, attendance) will continue to decline. Likely this will be at similar rates to what we have seen over the past 20 years. So I'd anticipate (and you can be pretty confident on this if you understand why numbers are declining) that by say 2040 we'd have about 30% of the population saying they are census christians, with perhaps just 3% regularly attending church.
These numbers are, of course, not zero but we will probably end up with a situation where worshiping christians aren't that disimilar in numbers to worshiping muslims. But in both cases these will be a tiny minority, with the vast majority having no meaningful engagement with any religion.
what do you mean by meaningful engagement?
You say worshipping Moslems will remain a tiny minority, but a reading of the pew research group shows that Moslems and Hindus tend not to switch. The Pew also think that Islam’s numbers will expand as will other religions due to Birthrate where as the birthrate for Christians is falling.
Evangelical Christianity grows of course, not by the rate people are born but by the rate people are born again and as I understand it that has been a growth area but.not only is it keen on the second birth....JeremyP talked about people not changing there minds. But Christianity is all about metanoia
Or as it is rendered repentance or changing one’s mind which brings us to your dark forecast about the lack of meaningful engagement.....what is going to stop it?
-
Some views from letters in The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/02/i-couldnt-pretend-any-more-readers-on-why-they-left-the-christian-faith
To quote Professor Davey, anecdotes aren’t worth a bean.
-
Some views from letters in The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/02/i-couldnt-pretend-any-more-readers-on-why-they-left-the-christian-faith
I wouldn’t want to meet James,44, from Birmingham in a dark alley.
-
what do you mean by meaningful engagement?
Being a member. Attending worship or other religious activities run by that religious organisation on a regular basis. Just like meaningful engagement with any other organisation.
You say worshipping Moslems will remain a tiny minority, but a reading of the pew research group shows that Moslems and Hindus tend not to switch.
Not to other religions, but then that is pretty uncommon for people brought up in any religion. But to non-religion, well that is another matter. While we may not yet be in that territory there is no reason to suppose that forth, fifth etc generation muslims will adopt a similar pattern of religious transmission over generations as christians (and indeed jews) currently do. That is that about half of the children brought up in that religion will end up non religious as adults. Pew research isn't good at factoring this into their modelling. Pew significantly over estimated the numbers of muslims in the UK - they predicted numbers would have increased to 6.3% by 2016 (mid way through the census) but that was only attained by 2021.
The Pew also think that Islam’s numbers will expand as will other religions due to Birthrate where as the birthrate for Christians is falling.
Birth rate is, of course, completely irrelevant if half of your kids end up non religious. You simply add one adult member of your religion traded off against one non religious adult. And as immigrant communities become more assimilated over generation their birth rates will fall too. Just look at jewish and catholic migrant communities.
The notion that migrant communities will pass on their religion to all their offspring with none becoming religious is naive non-sense (and actually rather patronising). Likewise the notion that communities with high birth rates will retain high birth rates generation after generation.
Evangelical Christianity grows of course,
Does it - or does it just decline at a slower rate.
... not by the rate people are born but by the rate people are born again...
Which is massively outnumbered by those born into religion but whose 'born again' moment is to recognise that they don't believe it and become non-religious. See the examples in Gordon's link - there are many, many more people like that than born again christians.
-
Being a member. Attending worship or other religious activities run by that religious organisation on a regular basis. Just like meaningful engagement with any other organisation.
I don’t think that is necessarily how people interact with organisations now or in the future Not to other religions, but then that is pretty uncommon for people brought up in any religion. But to non-religion, well that is another matter. While we may not yet be in that territory there is no reason to suppose that forth, fifth etc generation muslims will adopt a similar pattern of religious transmission over generations as christians (and indeed jews) currently do.
Why should they? That is that about half of the children brought up in that religion will end up non religious as adults. Pew research isn't good at factoring this into their modelling.
or you are wrong in predicting the switch by Moslems to non religion Pew significantly over estimated the numbers of muslims in the UK - they predicted numbers would have increased to 6.3% by 2016 (mid way through the census) but that was only attained by 2021.
Are you now then repudiating Pew researches findings?Birth rate is, of course, completely irrelevant if half of your kids end up non religious. You simply add one adult member of your religion traded off against one non religious adult. And as immigrant communities become more assimilated over generation their birth rates will fall too. Just look at jewish and catholic migrant communities.
where is your evidence that half of Moslem children become non religious?
The notion that migrant communities will pass on their religion to all their offspring with none becoming religious is naive non-sense (and actually rather patronising). Likewise the notion that communities with high birth rates will retain high birth rates generation after generation.
Does it - or does it just decline at a slower rate.
Which is massively outnumbered by those born into religion but whose 'born again' moment is to recognise that they don't believe it and become non-religious. See the examples in Gordon's link - there are many, many more people like that than born again christians.
Anecdotal evidence...nice gaslight At this point as an evangelical twice born I and my ilk have a dilemma should I take the realisation of others that they didn’t after all believe it as a failure or should I welcome their honesty and their dispensing with nominality? I think it must be the latter.
Here then is the pew research group on the changing face of global religion
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/
-
I don’t think that is necessarily how people interact with organisations now or in the future
Really - I note you've removed membership of that organisation. I think this along with engagement in activities is exactly how people interact with organisations now and likely in the future too. I didn't say physical attendance - of course attending events may be more likely to be virtual these days, but that is still attending an activity.
-
Why should they?
Why shouldn't they? To suggest that third, fourth, fifth generation UK muslims will follow a completely different trajectory to third, fourth, fifth generation UK catholics, jews, hindus etc seems to be arguing for exceptionalism. If you want to make that claim the onus is on you to provide the evidence.
-
To quote Professor Davey, anecdotes aren’t worth a bean.
Then remember that next time you read the stories in the NT.
-
where is your evidence that half of Moslem children become non religious?
Actually I didn't claim that hence:
'But to non-religion, well that is another matter. While we may not yet be in that territory there is no reason to suppose that forth, fifth etc generation muslims will adopt a similar pattern of religious transmission over generations as christians (and indeed jews) currently do.'
Actually the research I have seen suggests that intergenerational transmission of religion in UK muslims is about 75%, so somewhat higher than for christians, although I suspect this will decline over generations.
However the point isn't the absolute level of intergenerational transmission, but the gap between transmission of religion and transmission of non-religion, which we know to be pretty close to 100%. So it might take a little longer but you still end up with more non-religious offspring than religious from a starting point that is 100% religious.
So let's take a model example - two muslim parents, let's add the following assumptions:
1. Each has four children
2. Intergenerational transmission of islam is 75%, with the remainder becoming non-religious (as we know intergenerational conversion from one religion to another is tiny)
3. Intergenerational transmission of non-religion is 100% (I know it isn't quite 100%, probably 97% but this makes the maths simpler)
Starting generation - 2 people, 2 muslims - 100% muslim
First generation offspring - 4 people, 3 muslims, 1 non-religious - 75% muslim, 25% non religious
Second generation offspring - 16 people, 9 muslims, 7 non-religious - 56% muslim, 44% non religious
Third generation offspring - 64 people, 27 muslims, 37 non-religious - 42% muslim, 58% non religious
So by the third generation there are more non religious offspring than muslims.
-
The Pew also think that Islam’s numbers will expand as will other religions due to Birthrate where as the birthrate for Christians is falling.
But if this is driven by birthrate you'd expect an exponential increase in the number of muslims in the UK - but that isn't what we have since. The proportional increase in muslims from the 2011 to 2021 census (about 40%) is about half the increase from 2001 to 2011 (about 80%). So the increase in the number of muslims is slowing down, rather than increasing as you'd expect for exponential growth.
And that is despite continuing significant immigration from countries with major muslim populations.
This is exactly what you'd expect from the scenarios I've given where intergenerational transmission of islam isn't as high as intergeneration transmission of non-religion.
What is your explanation Vlad for the decline in the rate of increase in muslims in 2011-21 compared to 2001-11.
-
Then remember that next time you read the stories in the NT.
History doesn't require the same event to occur a statistically significant of times and where science regards repeatability as paramount, history only needs one Napoleon.
My quoting came about as Davey referred me to anecdotes as a proof of principle only a few posts after saying anecdotes weren't worth a bean.
I don't know why you aren't on to him for the cold blooded murder of statistics etc.
-
In this three minute video, Calvin Robinson offers a simple reason for the decline of Christianity in England and Wales - together with a solution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xA_mH6N5-0
-
In this three minute video, Calvin Robinson offers a simple reason for the decline of Christianity in England and Wales - together with a solution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xA_mH6N5-0
Blimey - how many things can one person get so hopelessly wrong in such a short space of time.
-
In this three minute video, Calvin Robinson offers a simple reason for the decline of Christianity in England and Wales - together with a solution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xA_mH6N5-0
Take it you were cheering along with this, Alan?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-65034513
-
In this three minute video, Calvin Robinson offers a simple reason for the decline of Christianity in England and Wales - together with a solution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xA_mH6N5-0
He seems to think the faithful are out there, pushed away by a church seeking modernity, when the demographics make it clear that the faithful are not out there any more, they're dying of old age and not being replaced. The church isn't running away from the faithful, it's trying to meet a disinterested faithful half-way and is failing to excite anyone with its message.
O.
-
In this three minute video, Calvin Robinson offers a simple reason for the decline of Christianity in England and Wales - together with a solution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xA_mH6N5-0
I suspect there is a simpler reason for this decline - more people are now realising that Christianity is, and always was, superstititious nonsense.
-
I suspect there is a simpler reason for this decline - more people are now realising that Christianity is, and always was, superstititious nonsense.
The reason is generational replacement:
Child brought up in religious household where both parents are religious - approx. 50:50 chance of being religious/non-religious as an adult.
Child brought up in a household with on religious parent and one non-religious parents - approx. 25:75 chance of being religious/non-religious as an adult.
Child brought up in a non religious household where neither parent is religious - approx. 3:97 chance of being religious/non-religious as an adult.
Immigration has moderated the decline a little - it would be worse without immigration. However migration that bolsters the numbers of the religious involves moving a religious person from one place in the world to another place. It is a zero sum game in terms of overall religiosity unlike generational replacement.