Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on March 28, 2024, 03:56:51 PM
-
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-christian-revival-is-under-way-in-britain/
-
Vlad,
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-christian-revival-is-under-way-in-britain/
“All that our post-Christian society has delivered so far is confusion, a mental health crisis in the young and the culture wars. It’s not surprising then that a movement of New Theists has sprung up.”
Oh dear.
-
Vlad,
Just so you know where your boy is coming from.
“Through creative use of podcast, radio, print, video and social media, he aims to showcase an intellectually compelling case for Christianity, while taking seriously the questions and objections of sceptics.”
“Until April 2023 he was Theology & Apologetics Editor for Premier Christian Radio, and hosted the Unbelievable? radio show and podcast as well as the Ask NT Wright Anything podcast. Justin was also editor of Premier Christianity magazine from 2014-2018, for which he continues to contribute articles.”
“When he isn't working in a professional capacity, you'll find Justin involved in youth work and worship leading at church.”
https://justinbrierley.com/about/
-
Vlad,
Just so you know where your boy is coming from.
“Through creative use of podcast, radio, print, video and social media, he aims to showcase an intellectually compelling case for Christianity, while taking seriously the questions and objections of sceptics.”
“Until April 2023 he was Theology & Apologetics Editor for Premier Christian Radio, and hosted the Unbelievable? radio show and podcast as well as the Ask NT Wright Anything podcast. Justin was also editor of Premier Christianity magazine from 2014-2018, for which he continues to contribute articles.”
“When he isn't working in a professional capacity, you'll find Justin involved in youth work and worship leading at church.”
https://justinbrierley.com/about/
From the link "Russell Brand is now calling himself a Christian, and is planning to be baptised".
I'm sure he'll be a shining light, just like Putin and Trump when they play with religion. Say na more.
https://www.christianpost.com/news/russell-brand-considering-baptism-attending-churches.html
-
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-christian-revival-is-under-way-in-britain/
"It also recounts how Holland, a secular liberal westerner who had lost any vestige of faith by his teenage years, came to realise he was still essentially Christian in terms of his beliefs about human rights, equality and freedom."
I just love the complete disregard for the state of Christianity across time and space that this is just dropped as though we're going to presume that he's not a misogynistic, homophobic, Christian Nationalist because that's so completely unthinkable.
It fundamentally ignores the fact that, in Britain, the Christian community hasn't led the way on those sorts of issues, it's had to be dragged along kicking and screaming into the modern world by secular, rights-based values.
'Christian revival' appears to be claiming that all the movements the church opposed in the last century now belong to the church as part of its proprietary claim on 'morals'.
O.
-
So some 'slebs, some of who are British, is a revival?
-
NS,
So some 'slebs, some of who are British, is a revival?
It’s a “movement” too apparently:
“Where this movement is headed remains to be seen.”
To be fair he pulls it back a bit next:
“The statistics show an overall picture of continued decline of religiosity. Churchgoing in some denominations has been in free fall for decades.”
But then loses the plot again:
“Yet one recent piece of research has given me pause for thought. In Finland, church attendance among 18- to 29-year-old men more than doubled between 2011 and 2019. The same uptick applies to their prayer habits and belief in God. The stats might just be a weird anomaly (this hasn’t been recorded in other Nordic countries), or it may be a canary in the coal mine.”
Absent any statistics, “more than doubled” could mean an increase of millions, or it could equally mean a statistically irrelevant increase from one person to three people from a population of millions.
-
https://justinbrierley.com/surprisingrebirth/
-
NS,
It’s a “movement” too apparently:
“Where this movement is headed remains to be seen.”
To be fair he pulls it back a bit next:
“The statistics show an overall picture of continued decline of religiosity. Churchgoing in some denominations has been in free fall for decades.”
But then loses the plot again:
“Yet one recent piece of research has given me pause for thought. In Finland, church attendance among 18- to 29-year-old men more than doubled between 2011 and 2019. The same uptick applies to their prayer habits and belief in God. The stats might just be a weird anomaly (this hasn’t been recorded in other Nordic countries), or it may be a canary in the coal mine.”
Absent any statistics, “more than doubled” could mean an increase of millions, or it could equally mean a statistically irrelevant increase from one person to three people from a population of millions.
Some details here
https://evangelicalfocus.com/europe/25092/against-the-odds-researchers-find-an-increase-in-religiosity-among-young-finnish-men
-
Vlad,
Just so you know where your boy is coming from.
“Through creative use of podcast, radio, print, video and social media, he aims to showcase an intellectually compelling case for Christianity, while taking seriously the questions and objections of sceptics.”
“Until April 2023 he was Theology & Apologetics Editor for Premier Christian Radio, and hosted the Unbelievable? radio show and podcast as well as the Ask NT Wright Anything podcast. Justin was also editor of Premier Christianity magazine from 2014-2018, for which he continues to contribute articles.”
“When he isn't working in a professional capacity, you'll find Justin involved in youth work and worship leading at church.”
https://justinbrierley.com/about/
Bzzzzzzzzz The genetic fallacy?!
-
Vlad,
“All that our post-Christian society has delivered so far is confusion, a mental health crisis in the young and the culture wars. It’s not surprising then that a movement of New Theists has sprung up.”
Oh dear.
Absolutely typical of happy-clappys - jump on a bandwagon just when everyone else is jumping off it. Thus "new atheists" becomes "new theists". They never think of anything original.
-
So some 'slebs, some of who are British, is a revival?
"Some 'slebs, some of who are British" could describe the New atheists or 4 horsemen as they referred to themselves and look how successful they were.
Where they didn't succeed according to Brierley et Al was their prediction that they had finished off Christianity.
-
"Some 'slebs, some of who are British" could describe the New atheists or 4 horsemen as they referred to themselves and look how successful they were.
Where they didn't succeed according to Brierley et Al was their prediction that they had finished off Christianity.
Not seen that prediction (more a claim if they said they had). Could you show where that was made?
-
Not seen that prediction (more a claim if they said they had). Could you show where that was made?
I think in 2016 Dawkins posted a warning not to celebrate the demise of christianity. I don't think one does that if they don't believe in christianity'demise.
-
Not seen that prediction (more a claim if they said they had). Could you show where that was made?
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/atheist-richard-dawkins-warns-of-something-worse-if-christianity-continues-to-decline-in-europe/127873.htm
-
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/atheist-richard-dawkins-warns-of-something-worse-if-christianity-continues-to-decline-in-europe/127873.htm
Don't see any claim that 'they had finished off Christianity'.
-
https://www.christiantoday.com/article/atheist-richard-dawkins-warns-of-something-worse-if-christianity-continues-to-decline-in-europe/127873.htm
That article says nothing about a claim or prediction of the demise of Christianity. Do pay attention!
-
"Some 'slebs, some of who are British" could describe the New atheists or 4 horsemen as they referred to themselves and look how successful they were.
Where they didn't succeed according to Brierley et Al was their prediction that they had finished off Christianity.
Never seen such a prediction, and you're reply to Maeght doesn't show it. Even if they did it's not really relevant to whether Russell Brand amounts to British revival of Christianity.
-
Absolutely typical of happy-clappys - jump on a bandwagon just when everyone else is jumping off it. Thus "new atheists" becomes "new theists". They never think of anything original.
Wait till the new new atheists, and the new new new theists!
-
Never seen such a prediction, and you're reply to Maeght doesn't show it. Even if they did it's not really relevant to whether Russell Brand amounts to British revival of Christianity.
I think Brierley himself outlines the circumstances how any green shoots Christian revival can fail. I.e. if its merely a passing fad or political. Dawkin's has certainly said we shouldn't celebrate the demise of christianity in Europe and has talked about it's "death throws."
Is Brierley saying that Russell Brand constitutes revival? That sounds like hyperbole on your part.
I recall reading about a lunch Dawkins had where the suggestion that the defeat of Christianity left the door open for other religious opinions. I will of course post further details on that as I can be bothered to find them.
-
I think Brierley himself outlines the circumstances how any green shoots Christian revival can fail. I.e. if its merely a passing fad or political. Dawkin's has certainly said we shouldn't celebrate the demise of christianity in Europe and has talked about it's "death throws."
Is Brierley saying that Russell Brand constitutes revival? That sounds like hyperbole on your part.
I recall reading about a lunch Dawkins had where the suggestion that the defeat of Christianity left the door open for other religious opinions. I will of course post further details on that as I can be bothered to find them.
I'm not getting anything more thar shows a revivival in Britain from the article other than Russell Brand and a couple of other celebrities so not really seeing it as hyperbole. Other than the 'slebs and an anomalous group, as he says, in Finland, where's the beef?
Again, even had some atheists predicted 'that they had finished off Christianity', it's irrelevant to Brierley's case, and nothing in the article from Dawkins or your lunch idea amounts to such a prediction.
-
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-christian-revival-is-under-way-in-britain/
Oh I do so love it when people use unverifiable anecdote (oh look at how many more people are rushing to St Bartholomew the Great) as justification for a broad conclusion (just look at that christian revival) despite this conclusion not being backed up be actual evidence (that the CofE itself publishes annual statistics that show attendance continuing to decline rather than rising - covid years apart). And of course this typically comes from someone who wants their generalised conclusion based on their unverifiable anecdote to be true.
But there are some other aspects here.
First the church in question - St Bartholomew the Great - I know it very well as it is really close to one of my places of work. It is very far from being a typical church. It is a very important historic church and smack on the tourist trail (all sorts of tourists, more of that later). Anyone who knows the area won't be at all surprised that the church is full of affluent younger professionals, because those are the kind of people who live, and importantly work, nearby. It is a world away from the typical CofE church in a town or village, where the average congregation is about 30 people across a whole week and whose congregation are very elderly.
Secondly - tourism - it is a church regularly visited by tourists, and not just the casual drop-by but at it has a very highly regarded reputation for its music and singing that includes choral tourists. I know very well as I've thought about (although not actually been able to) attending choral events there and I know a number of members of my choir have regularly trotted down there to participate in their choral evensong (largely for the music, not the religion).
But there is a a broader point - I get really frustrated with people who claim that just be looking around that they can tell that their congregation is growing or shrinking. The decline in attendance for CofE is about 3% a year. So if a church had attendance of 100 a year later that would be 97. Unless you actually count there is no way you'd really notice the difference between 100 people in the congregation and 97.
But also there will be a tendency to notice 'new' people rather than notice the couple who typically sat on the other side of the church six rows back who are no longer there. So in a situation where four people stop attending while two new people join it will lend itself to an anecdote about the new people, despite overall numbers declining.
That's why anecdotes of this nature tend to be a load of non-sense. Anecdotes are only really useful if they are treated purely as an unverifiable anecdote, without any generalised conclusion. Or if the anecdote aligns with the proper evidence that shows the same thing. In this case it doesn't.
-
I'm not getting anything more thar shows a revivival in Britain from the article other than Russell Brand and a couple of other celebrities so not really seeing it as hyperbole. Other than the 'slebs and an anomalous group, as he says, in Finland, where's the beef?
Again, even had some atheists predicted 'that they had finished off Christianity', it's irrelevant to Brierley's case, and nothing in the article from Dawkins or your lunch idea amounts to such a prediction.
I think you think then that the term revival is hyperbole.
So, there either is revival or not. Brierley's interesting point is that the offensive by new atheism has stalled and the debate has moderated between atheists and Christians. Added to this are the reports that the New Atheists have lost a 'Horsewoman to christianity.
Of course Brierley and his new coterie of reasonably tame atheists don't post on that museum of New Atheism aka the Religion ethics forum. An atheist "hang" where a militant atheist can be themselves.
-
I think you think then that the term revival is hyperbole.
Certainly in the UK it isn't just hyperbole, but non-sense. Hyperbole would suggest that there is an increase in attendance, but not to the extend that would justify the term revival.
But the actual evidence is the opposite - the long term trend of declining attendance in the CofE (and other major denominations in the UK) continues. How can you talk of revival when fewer people (not more people) are participating.
-
Oh I do so love it when people use unverifiable anecdote (oh look at how many more people are rushing to St Bartholomew the Great) as justification for a broad conclusion (just look at that christian revival) despite this conclusion not being backed up be actual evidence (that the CofE itself publishes annual statistics that show attendance continuing to decline rather than rising - covid years apart). And of course this typically comes from someone who wants their generalised conclusion based on their unverifiable anecdote to be true.
But there are some other aspects here.
First the church in question - St Bartholomew the Great - I know it very well as it is really close to one of my places of work. It is very far from being a typical church. It is a very important historic church and smack on the tourist trail (all sorts of tourists, more of that later). Anyone who knows the area won't be at all surprised that the church is full of affluent younger professionals, because those are the kind of people who live, and importantly work, nearby. It is a world away from the typical CofE church in a town or village, where the average congregation is about 30 people across a whole week and whose congregation are very elderly.
Secondly - tourism - it is a church regularly visited by tourists, and not just the casual drop-by but at it has a very highly regarded reputation for its music and singing that includes choral tourists. I know very well as I've thought about (although not actually been able to) attending choral events there and I know a number of members of my choir have regularly trotted down there to participate in their choral evensong (largely for the music, not the religion).
But there is a a broader point - I get really frustrated with people who claim that just be looking around that they can tell that their congregation is growing or shrinking. The decline in attendance for CofE is about 3% a year. So if a church had attendance of 100 a year later that would be 97. Unless you actually count there is no way you'd really notice the difference between 100 people in the congregation and 97.
But also there will be a tendency to notice 'new' people rather than notice the couple who typically sat on the other side of the church six rows back who are no longer there. So in a situation where four people stop attending while two new people join it will lend itself to an anecdote about the new people, despite overall numbers declining.
That's why anecdotes of this nature tend to be a load of non-sense. Anecdotes are only really useful if they are treated purely as an unverifiable anecdote, without any generalised conclusion. Or if the anecdote aligns with the proper evidence that shows the same thing. In this case it doesn't.
Professor. Can I put this claim I read about recently to you for comment " Inherited religion is falling, chosen religion is rising".
-
Certainly in the UK it isn't just hyperbole, but non-sense. Hyperbole would suggest that there is an increase in attendance, but not to the extend that would justify the term revival.
But the actual evidence is the opposite - the long term trend of declining attendance in the CofE (and other major denominations in the UK) continues. How can you talk of revival when fewer people (not more people) are participating.
What constitutes, for you, revival and how have you been informed by religious definitions of revival?
-
I think you think then that the term revival is hyperbole.
So, there either is revival or not. Brierley's interesting point is that the offensive by new atheism has stalled and the debate has moderated between atheists and Christians. Added to this are the reports that the New Atheists have lost a 'Horsewoman to christianity.
Of course Brierley and his new coterie of reasonably tame atheists don't post on that museum of New Atheism aka the Religion ethics forum. An atheist "hang" where a militant atheist can be themselves.
Ayan Ali's conversion is somewhat bizarre from what I have read (which is admittedly limited). She said things such as "atheism can't equip us for civilisational war." and talked about how Judeo-Christian traditions were the best way for Western society to survive but hasn't actually said that Christianity is true or that God exists. I wouldn't see that as a conversion to Christianity. Have you seen anything that shows she does believe Christianity is true though?
-
I think you think then that the term revival is hyperbole.
So, there either is revival or not. Brierley's interesting point is that the offensive by new atheism has stalled and the debate has moderated between atheists and Christians. Added to this are the reports that the New Atheists have lost a 'Horsewoman to christianity.
Of course Brierley and his new coterie of reasonably tame atheists don't post on that museum of New Atheism aka the Religion ethics forum. An atheist "hang" where a militant atheist can be themselves.
Inaccurate rather than hyperbole. A revival is surely an increase in overall numbers? There is nothing in the article about that in the UK- so it's not that it's an exaggeration, it's just not evidenced.
I take it you have no evidence that there was a claim from the 'New Atheists or the 4 Horsemen' that 'they had finished off Christianity'?
I'd hope most people could be themselves on this board within the limits of the board rules. Not really sure what amounts to a 'militant atheist'. Are they a breakaway from the 'New Atheists'?
-
What constitutes, for you, revival and how have you been informed by religious definitions of revival?
Is the definition 'Russell Brand likey our booky wooky'?
-
Ayan Ali's conversion is somewhat bizarre from what I have read (which is admittedly limited). She said things such as "atheism can't equip us for civilisational war." and talked about how Judeo-Christian traditions were the best way for Western society to survive but hasn't actually said that Christianity is true or that God exists. I wouldn't see that as a conversion to Christianity. Have you seen anything that shows she does believe Christianity is true though?
Straight of the bat, this post seems to clutch at the straws that this lady might only be admitting a cultural christianity. That of course might be wishful thinking on your part.
My concern of course is that mere intellectual or cultural adoption is not the same as receiving Christ into your life. So my concern would be for her rather than the numbers. Time will tell.
-
Straight of the bat, this post seems to clutch at the straws that this lady might only be admitting a cultural christianity. That of course might be wishful thinking on your part.
My concern of course is that mere intellectual or cultural adoption is not the same as receiving Christ into your life. So my concern would be for her rather than the numbers. Time will tell.
Clutching at straws would suggest I care whether it is a genuine conversion or not, and I don't. It was an observation prompted by your suggestion she had been 'lost to Christianity' - something I could just as well claim to be you clutching at straws if in fact she is talking about cultural Christianity and not actual belief. I take it you don't have anything to suggest she now believes in Christianity rather than just thinking cultural Christianity is important to maintain Western society. Lost to Christianity suggests becoming a believer and I see no evidence for that, so two things in recent posts which you can't actually support.
-
Clutching at straws would suggest I care whether it is a genuine conversion or not, and I don't. It was an observation prompted by your suggestion she had been 'lost to Christianity' - something I could just as well claim to be you clutching at straws if in fact she is talking about cultural Christianity and not actual belief. I take it you don't have anything to suggest she now believes in Christianity rather than just thinking cultural Christianity is important to maintain Western society. Lost to Christianity suggests becoming a believer and I see no evidence for that, so two things in recent posts which you can't actually support.
One of my sources on this ladies conversion is Wikipedia which says she converted to Christianity in 2023.
Explaining the conversions of top of the line atheists away has happened before and with jealous rigour. Something similar was done with Anthony Flew's change of mind on theism.
I don't know if there is revival in the statistical sense which can only be restricted to profession and church attendance.
To me Brierley states that the New Atheist onslaught has subsided. That the four Horsemen and their associates have few heirs, that there is no apostolic succession.
What I find interesting is that this forum is emptier of atheist personnel but those remaining are IMV angrier.
-
Vlad,
So, there either is revival or not.
So the writer makes the basic error in reasoning of thinking the plural of anecdote is evidence. It gets worse…
“… a secular liberal westerner who had lost any vestige of faith by his teenage years, came to realise he was still essentially Christian in terms of his beliefs about human rights, equality and freedom.”
What beliefs would they be do you think – homophobia, misogyny, condemnation of believers in different gods? Brierley seems to be cherry-picking the beliefs here, and then plagiarising them as being Christian ones.
"I also believe Holland’s journey reflects a wider turning of the secular tide in the West, a phenomenon I document in my book The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God."
I haven’t read the book, but there’s no evidence in the article of a “wider turning of the secular tide in the West”. Indeed, further down he says himself “The statistics show an overall picture of continued decline of religiosity. Churchgoing in some denominations has been in free fall for decades.” What need of statistics though when he knows a bloke who etc… eh?
“The New Atheists of the early 2000s – led by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett – predicted a utopia founded upon science and reason once we had abandoned religion. But their bestselling books proved to be full of empty promises. All that our post-Christian society has delivered so far is confusion, a mental health crisis in the young and the culture wars. It’s not surprising then that a movement of New Theists has sprung up.”
Can you see anything in that paragraph that’s actually true? I can’t.
“But Christianity is not just a useful lifeboat for stranded intellectuals. If it isn’t literally true, it isn’t valuable. Whether Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead matters. It mattered to St Paul. ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.’ And it should matter to us.”
No – it could still be “valuable” even if there not a word of truth in it provided people believe it’s true. Whether even then it actually is valuable (other then to its believers) is another matter though.
“If people hadn’t actually believed in the Christian promise of redemption and if they hadn’t been able to hope in the face of death, they wouldn’t have had the courage to change the world in Jesus’s name.”
He’s confusing here believing something to be true with it actually being true.
“However, they say God moves in mysterious ways. As a believing Christian, I see signs that he is moving in the minds and hearts of secular intellectuals.”
“As a believing Christian” is irrelevant. As a rational thinker though either the data supports the claim or it doesn’t. It doesn’t.
"Many of them are recognising that secular humanism has failed and, against all their expectations, seem to be on the verge of embracing faith instead."
How “many”, and would value would an argumentum ad populum be in any case even if he could find lots of them?
“Some have actually become Christians. The author and poet Paul Kingsnorth surprised his readership when he announced his conversion in 2021. Russell Brand is now calling himself a Christian and says he plans to get baptised. Ayaan Hirsi Ali says she has embraced Christianity after realising she was ‘spiritually bankrupt’. The tech pioneer Jordan Hall recently went public about his conversion to Christianity. Significantly, both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Jordan Hall have mentioned the influence of Tom Holland’s thesis that Christianity is the foundation on which the ethics of the West sits.”
Again, the plural of anecdote isn’t evidence.
“The historian was tempted to put it down to dehydration and nausea, but couldn’t dismiss it so easily. ‘It was a kind of sweet sense of intoxication,’ Holland told me. ‘Perhaps everything was weird and strange. And the moment you accept that there are angels, then suddenly the world just seems richer and more interesting.”
Angels eh? Well…
“Holland also spoke candidly for the first time about a cancer diagnosis he received in December 2021, which would have necessitated the removal of part of his digestive system. The news came at a time when hospitals were being overwhelmed by a Covid spike, and a clear picture of the diagnosis was hard to come by. Reeling from the news, Holland attended midnight mass at St Bartholomew the Great, where he prayed a desperate prayer.
Within a couple of weeks, it appeared his prayer had been answered. A set of unusual circumstances led to the diagnosis being reversed. No surgery was needed after all.”
Oh FFS. Seriously? Does the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy ring any bells here?
“Holland freely admits that neither of these examples are likely to sway a hard-headed sceptic.”
Or even just a rational thinker…
“The moment you accept that there are angels, then suddenly the world seems richer and more interesting”
Leprechauns too. So?
“Where this movement is headed remains to be seen.”
What “movement”?
“The statistics show an overall picture of continued decline of religiosity. Churchgoing in some denominations has been in free fall for decades.”
Er, yes.
Apart from all that though…
-
For anyone interested here's Ali Ayaan Hirsi's article on her conversion
https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/
-
This is hilarious. Apparently, atheist Tom Holland went into a church and prayed and then his diagnosis of cancer was found to be incorrect. Now he's a Christian allegedly*.
I'm intrigued. If it's that easy for God to recruit new believers, why doesn't he do it for every non believer who prays for him? Why doesn't he do it for the believers who get cancer? Or is it a oner time offer for new subscribers only?
We know the reason why: your god doesn't exist. If there's any kind of god, he/she/it doesn't care about us.
*listening to him every week on The Rest is History, I think I'd be a little bit sceptical of that claim. Justin Brierly perpetrates many other lies in the article. Why not misrepresent Holland's beliefs too.
-
Jeremy,
This is hilarious. Apparently, atheist Tom Holland went into a church and prayed and then his diagnosis of cancer was found to be incorrect. Now he's a Christian allegedly*.
I'm intrigued. If it's that easy for God to recruit new believers, why doesn't he do it for every non believer who prays for him? Why doesn't he do it for the believers who get cancer? Or is it a oner time offer for new subscribers only?
We know the reason why: your god doesn't exist. If there's any kind of god, he/she/it doesn't care about us.
*listening to him every week on The Rest is History, I think I'd be a little bit sceptical of that claim. Justin Brierly perpetrates many other lies in the article. Why not misrepresent Holland's beliefs too.
So we have someone who was diagnosed “…when hospitals were being overwhelmed by a Covid spike, and a clear picture of the diagnosis was hard to come by.”
Who then “prayed a desperate prayer” – my word, how god botherers love a bit of hyperbole to juice up the story eh?
Following which, “within a couple of weeks, it appeared his prayer had been answered. A set of unusual circumstances led to the diagnosis being reversed. No surgery was needed after all.”
“Appeared" to whom – the credulous and non-rational presumably?
“Holland freely admits that neither of these examples are likely to sway a hard-headed sceptic.”
Funny that, especially when the story claims a god who cures someone who’s prepared to genuflect but not apparently this poor little girl: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68668234
What a scumbag such a god would be.
-
Professor. Can I put this claim I read about recently to you for comment " Inherited religion is falling, chosen religion is rising".
Evidence?
-
One of my sources on this ladies conversion is Wikipedia which says she converted to Christianity in 2023.
Explaining the conversions of top of the line atheists away has happened before and with jealous rigour. Something similar was done with Anthony Flew's change of mind on theism.
I don't know if there is revival in the statistical sense which can only be restricted to profession and church attendance.
To me Brierley states that the New Atheist onslaught has subsided. That the four Horsemen and their associates have few heirs, that there is no apostolic succession.
What I find interesting is that this forum is emptier of atheist personnel but those remaining are IMV angrier.
The Wikipedia article includes the fact that people criticised what she said as she didn't mention belief in Christianity but talked about it as I described earlier.
-
Professor. Can I put this claim I read about recently to you for comment " Inherited religion is falling, chosen religion is rising".
Interesting question.
Well first we'd need some definitions - so perhaps:
'inherited religion' - someone who is an adherent of a religion as an adult that is the same as the religious tradition they were brought up in.
'chosen religion' - someone who has chosen to follow a religion as an adult without there being a link to that religion through upbringing.
I'd also suggest we shouldn't consider someone who shuffles between different christian denominations, e.g. brought up catholic but becomes CofE as an adult as not being 'inherited religion. So we'd really be considering someone brought up e.g. muslim or non religious who becomes christian as an adult.
For completeness we should also add in 'inherited non-religion' (someone brought up non religious who retains that non-religion as an adult) and 'chosen non religion' (someone brought up in a religious household who chooses to become non religious as a adult.
So having got that out of the way we can look at the evidence.
Well the first thing to note is that people who are 'chosen religion' are a vanishingly small proportion of the christian population (and I think also of other religions). So typically less than 2% of current christians were brought up either in another religion or in a non religious household. This is important, as while it might be the case that 'chosen religion' is growing, given that it represents such a small proportion it will have little effect on overall adherent numbers. So if 'inherited religion' is declining 'chosen religion' would need to grow at probably 50 times the rate to prevent overall adherent numbers declining.
But actually asking about whether one or other is growing or shrinking doesn't seem particularly relevant - the key issue is net change - so the numbers gained by conversion (from another religion or from non religion) vs those lost by conversion (to another religion or from non religion). Now the conversions from one religion to another and vice versa are both small and seem largely balanced - each religion gains as many as it loses. But the key here is conversion to and from religion (e.g. christianity) and non religion. Here the numbers are neither small nor balanced.
Typically between one third and one half of those brought up christian convert to non religion as adults - under my definition 'chosen non religion'. And for every non religious person who converts to christianity ('chosen religion') about 10 to 12 convert in the opposite direction ('chosen non religion').
You can see a lot of this evidence in the following short report
https://www.stmarys.ac.uk/research/centres/benedict-xvi/docs/2018-feb-contemporary-catholicism-report-may16.pdf
-
Interesting question.
Well first we'd need some definitions - so perhaps:
'inherited religion' - someone who is an adherent of a religion as an adult that is the same as the religious tradition they were brought up in.
'chosen religion' - someone who has chosen to follow a religion as an adult without there being a link to that religion through upbringing.
Is this an agreed definition or are these just yours? If so, who agreed them?
Of course the idea here is that an adult choosing to commit to their parents perhaps nominal faith should be classed as the same nominal or cultural faith. That I would move is itself a sweeping generalisation which devotees to a religion who move from the nominal to the committed in adulthood might not agree with. A better methodology would be by profession I.e. Those who profess an inherited faith e.g.I am a Christiann because my family and parents were Christian as opposed to those who profess being born again. That you are prepared to discard any difference because you can't grasp the idea is argument from incredulity on your part.
I'd also suggest we shouldn't consider someone who shuffles between different christian denominations, e.g. brought up catholic but becomes CofE as an adult as not being 'inherited religion. So we'd really be considering someone brought up e.g. muslim or non religious who becomes christian as an adult.
For completeness we should also add in 'inherited non-religion' (someone brought up non religious who retains that non-religion as an adult) and 'chosen non religion' (someone brought up in a religious household who chooses to become non religious as a adult.
So having got that out of the way we can look at the evidence.
Well the first thing to note is that people who are 'chosen religion' are a vanishingly small proportion of the christian population (and I think also of other religions). So typically less than 2% of current christians were brought up either in another religion or in a non religious household. This is important, as while it might be the case that 'chosen religion' is growing, given that it represents such a small proportion it will have little effect on overall adherent numbers. So if 'inherited religion' is declining 'chosen religion' would need to grow at probably 50 times the rate to prevent overall adherent numbers declining.
But actually asking about whether one or other is growing or shrinking doesn't seem particularly relevant - the key issue is net change - so the numbers gained by conversion (from another religion or from non religion) vs those lost by conversion (to another religion or from non religion). Now the conversions from one religion to another and vice versa are both small and seem largely balanced - each religion gains as many as it loses. But the key here is conversion to and from religion (e.g. christianity) and non religion. Here the numbers are neither small nor balanced.
Typically between one third and one half of those brought up christian convert to non religion as adults - under my definition 'chosen non religion'. And for every non religious person who converts to christianity ('chosen religion') about 10 to 12 convert in the opposite direction ('chosen non religion').
You can see a lot of this evidence in the following short report
https://www.stmarys.ac.uk/research/centres/benedict-xvi/docs/2018-feb-contemporary-catholicism-report-may16.pdf
It looks like there is a lot in the methodology that involves categorical shoehorned perhaps for the sake of the methodology. I think the Humanists, in their campaign to get people to make a more realistic entry about their religion on the census had more useful definitions of chosen religion than you.
At the end of the day any survey suffers from the constraints of social science.
-
Is this an agreed definition or are these just yours? If so, who agreed them?
Nope, mine isn't an agreed definition, but then again nor is yours. But the point remains that to have a meaningful discussion about the distinction between 'inherited religion' and 'chosen religion' we need to agree on what these definitions mean.
Of course the idea here is that an adult choosing to commit to their parents perhaps nominal faith should be classed as the same nominal or cultural faith. That I would move is itself a sweeping generalisation which devotees to a religion who move from the nominal to the committed in adulthood might not agree with. A better methodology would be by profession I.e. Those who profess an inherited faith e.g.I am a Christiann because my family and parents were Christian as opposed to those who profess being born again. That you are prepared to discard any difference because you can't grasp the idea is argument from incredulity on your part.
But 98% of adult christians in the UK, whether 'born again' or not, were brought up in a Christian household. So the impact of upbringing is massive - without that 'inheritance' the likelihood of someone being christian as an adult is vanishingly small.
There is also the issue that 'professed' or 'born again' is highly subjective and also it seems to be of importance only in some branches of christianity - for example in my 30 years of interaction with practicing catholics (my wife and her family) I have never once heard the term as one of importance in adulthood. This seems to be something important to evangelicals.
Finally, and most importantly - your definition seems to lump someone brought up christian who makes an active 'profession' as an adult in the same category as someone brought up muslim with no prior engagement to christianity who converts. That seems totally non-sense as the convert from another religion cannot be considered to be the same as a person who folds into, or folds back into, the religion of their upbringing.
It looks like there is a lot in the methodology that involves categorical shoehorned perhaps for the sake of the methodology. I think the Humanists, in their campaign to get people to make a more realistic entry about their religion on the census had more useful definitions of chosen religion than you.
-
It looks like there is a lot in the methodology that involves categorical shoehorned perhaps for the sake of the methodology. I think the Humanists, in their campaign to get people to make a more realistic entry about their religion on the census had more useful definitions of chosen religion than you.
At the end of the day any survey suffers from the constraints of social science.
Oh dear - you don't like the evidence so you just dismiss it.
Interesting you need to bring up humanists - why on earth is that relevant to a highly credible piece of work conducted by a Catholic organisation. If there was any bias going on here, you'd anticipate it being pro-christian given that the work was conducted by a christian organisation. But the data themselves are clearly objective, while there is understandably a focus on catholicism in the overall piece, but it still includes enough information to address your earlier question.
-
Oh dear - you don't like the evidence so you just dismiss it.
Interesting you need to bring up humanists - why on earth is that relevant to a highly credible piece of work conducted by a Catholic organisation. If there was any bias going on here, you'd anticipate it being pro-christian given that the work was conducted by a christian organisation. But the data themselves are clearly objective, while there is understandably a focus on catholicism in the overall piece, but it still includes enough information to address your earlier question.
I have seen the evidence before and have not made any statement of dismissal as far as I can remember.
My beef is the same as Humanist UK, that official surveying does not get to the nub of the question of peoples chosen religion but merely they're affiliation. As for my views on your methodology regarding people's chosen belief it is well known I think that's crap for reasons I've frequently given not least your rewriting of my personal biography.
-
My beef is the same as Humanist UK, that official surveying does not get to the nub of the question of peoples chosen religion but merely they're affiliation. As for my views on your methodology regarding people's chosen belief it is well known I think that's crap for reasons I've frequently given not least your rewriting of my personal biography.
The beef from various groups is about the census, specifically about the leading wording of the question used: 'What is your religion?' - as far as I'm aware no such criticism has been placed on other surveys (e.g. the British Social Attitudes survey) which use a more neutral form of wording that considers religion and non religion as equivalent options.
This report works from the raw data from the British Social Attitudes survey so I doubt Humanist UK would have any issue with potential bias within the raw data set.
Interesting that you consider your opinion on the hugely well respected social attitudes data (going back to the early 80s) to trump those of the community of social scientists who consider this one of the most respected and rich data sets pretty well anywhere in the world.
Almost as if you don't like the findings so you dismiss the methodology - hmmm, somewhat lacking in objectivity I feel.
-
As for my views on your methodology regarding people's chosen belief it is well known I think that's crap for reasons I've frequently given not least your rewriting of my personal biography.
Do you accept that a person brought up in a christian household with a christian upbringing who ends up christian as an adult (even if 'born again') is not equivalent to someone brought up in a muslim household with a muslim upbringing who converts to christianity as an adult cannot be considered to be the same?
Your categorisation seems to dump them in the same category.
-
Do you accept that a person brought up in a christian household with a christian upbringing who ends up christian as an adult (even if 'born again') is not equivalent to someone brought up in a muslim household with a muslim upbringing who converts to christianity as an adult cannot be considered to be the same?
Your categorisation seems to dump them in the same category.
I think you and I have different definitions of "christian household" professor and the ability to categorise different religions.
For example you appear quite happy to ignore the difference between a nominal christian and a born again christian.
We differ also in our views on the ability and effectiveness of social science although given their methodology I'm not arguing that their conclusions are a bad fit. That says nothing about methodology.
As you know Professor I rather view your efforts to promote the statistics dangerously close to an argumentum ad populum.
I would also not seek to interpret a 46% return of "christianity" as "Well that just about wraps it up for christianity".
-
I think you and I have different definitions of "christian household" professor and the ability to categorise different religions.
For example you appear quite happy to ignore the difference between a nominal christian and a born again christian.
We differ also in our views on the ability and effectiveness of social science although given their methodology I'm not arguing that their conclusions are a bad fit. That says nothing about methodology.
As you know Professor I rather view your efforts to promote the statistics dangerously close to an argumentum ad populum.
I would also not seek to interpret a 46% return of "christianity" as "Well that just about wraps it up for christianity".
Your complete failure to answer my question is duly noted.
I ask again:
Do you accept that a person brought up in a christian household with a christian upbringing who ends up christian as an adult (even if 'born again') is not equivalent to someone brought up in a muslim household with a muslim upbringing who converts to christianity as an adult cannot be considered to be the same?
-
Do you accept that a person brought up in a christian household with a christian upbringing who ends up christian as an adult (even if 'born again') is not equivalent to someone brought up in a muslim household with a muslim upbringing who converts to christianity as an adult cannot be considered to be the same?
There are many different paths people have undergone to discovering the truth of God's love for us in the person of Jesus Christ.
It is the end result which matters - not the route they have taken.
-
What Alan says.
-
What Alan says.
So when you quoted " Inherited religion is falling, chosen religion is rising" , you thought it was a completely pointless thing to quote.
-
So when you quoted " Inherited religion is falling, chosen religion is rising" , you thought it was a completely pointless thing to quote.
No, I think a distinction between inherited religion and religion committed to in later life is a discussion point.
Davey's definition of inherited religion, effectively that when an adult chooses say christianity and was "brought up a christian they haven't really chosen it ut inherited, is in my opinion wrong and is a subser in the errors of his methodology.
In the case thT Davey proposes.I would argue that although they may have different inherited religions they both have the same new religion, namely they are born again.
I think Davey's problem is trying to have different religions in his methodology, they all have to perform in the same way within that methodology.
A symphony of all this is to give people biographies that they don't recognise, but I have discussed this with him.
I take it you support the methodologies Davey supports?
-
No, I think a distinction between inherited religion and religion committed to in later life is a discussion point.
Davey's definition of inherited religion, effectively that when an adult chooses say christianity and was "brought up a christian they haven't really chosen it ut inherited, is in my opinion wrong and is a subser in the errors of his methodology.
In the case thT Davey proposes.I would argue that although they may have different inherited religions they both have the same new religion, namely they are born again.
I think Davey's problem is trying to have different religions in his methodology, they all have to perform in the same way within that methodology.
A symphony of all this is to give people biographies that they don't recognise, but I have discussed this with him.
I take it you support the methodologies Davey supports?
And yet in agreeing with Alan you would be saying it's not worth a discussion.
-
And yet in agreeing with Alan you would be saying it's not worth a discussion.
Alan has taken part in the discussion.
We have all considered the phrase “inherited and chosen religion”. Are you confusing “not discussing” with “not agreeing”?
-
Alan has taken part in the discussion.
We have all considered the phrase “inherited and chosen religion”. Are you confusing “not discussing” with “not agreeing”?
And Alan wrote in reply to Prof D, dismissing the validity of the distinction,
T"here are many different paths people have undergone to discovering the truth of God's love for us in the person of Jesus Christ.
It is the end result which matters - not the route they have taken"
You then agreed with that, which means you agree with dismissing the distinction you had raised in the first place.
-
And Alan wrote in reply to Prof D, dismissing the validity of the distinction,
T"here are many different paths people have undergone to discovering the truth of God's love for us in the person of Jesus Christ.
It is the end result which matters - not the route they have taken"
You then agreed with that, which means you agree with dismissing the distinction you had raised in the first place.
I don’t think he dismisses the distinction. Don’t you think Davey tends to dismiss the distinction between inherited Christian religion nd chosen Christian religion?I do.
I can disagree with Davey because he’s quite obvious about what he argues.
-
I don’t think he dismisses the distinction. Don’t you think Davey tends to dismiss the distinction between inherited Christian religion nd chosen Christian religion?I do.
I can disagree with Davey because he’s quite obvious about what he argues.
And it's quite obvious Alan dismisses the distinction
As to Prof D, don't care.
-
Alan has taken part in the discussion.
In the sense that he posted a message on this thread, yes. But what he actually said (and I paraphrase) is that the discussion is pointless.
We have all considered the phrase “inherited and chosen religion”. Are you confusing “not discussing” with “not agreeing”?
What's your definition of inherited versus chosen then?
-
Seems to me that there are three descriptors that apply.
1. People who acquire religious allegiance via either familial or cultural exposure, or as a matter of personal choice.
2. People who having acquired religion decide, as a matter of personal choice, to reject it.
3. People who never acquired any religious allegiance in the first place.
-
Seems to me that there are three descriptors that apply.
1. People who acquire religious allegiance via either familial or cultural exposure, or as a matter of personal choice.
2. People who having acquired religion decide, as a matter of personal choice, to reject it.
3. People who never acquired any religious allegiance in the first place.
Point 1. Conflates two things.
To me studies like this treat religions as just different brands of the same item.
In short cultural or inherited christianity is not the same religion as chosen, existentially chosen, born again christianity.
-
Point 1. Conflates two things.
It explicitly distinguishes between two things but states, for the purposes of that particular discussion, that those distinctions don't make a difference. You could argue that, but you can't claim a conflation when it explicitly identifies the two elements.
To me studies like this treat religions as just different brands of the same item.
Unless you have some differentiation to make which is relevant to the discussion, why shouldn't they be treated as such? I think it's explicitly part of the teaching of the Ba'hai faith, if I recall correctly? (Happy to be corrected on that if it's not so).
In short cultural or inherited christianity is not the same religion as chosen, existentially chosen, born again christianity.
Are the beliefs necessarily different? Is the commitment necessarily different? Is the absolute lack of any credible justification any different?
O.
-
Point 1. Conflates two things.
To me studies like this treat religions as just different brands of the same item.
In short cultural or inherited christianity is not the same religion as chosen, existentially chosen, born again christianity.
So now you disagree with Alan. You seem very confused.
-
Don’t you think Davey tends to dismiss the distinction between inherited Christian religion nd chosen Christian religion?I do.
I don't disregard the distinction - I just think that is cannot be considered without a clear definition and I provided just that, a clear definition. Now you don't like my definition - but your alternative is complete non-sense as it suggests a complete equivalence between a person with a christian upbringing who ends up christian as an adult as a result of a deliberate choice and someone with a muslim upbringing who ends up christian as an adult as a result of a deliberate choice.
You cannot consider these to be equivalent as you are completely ignoring the most important aspect that defines the likelihood of an individual having a specific religious belief as an adult - namely their upbringing. As I pointed out previously upbringing is so critical that 98% of adult christians in the UK had a christian upbringing. And actually this is similar for other religions.
You bang on about the importance of being 'born again' (something not recognised as important in some major christian denominations) yet being 'born again' is nearly always being 'born again' into the religion of that individual's upbringing. It is upbringing that is critical as in virtually all cases religious beliefs seem to be unbelievable to those not brought up to belief the claims of that religion - hence the tiny proportion of adult christians that did not have a christian upbringing.
-
Point 1. Conflates two things.
Nope.
To me studies like this treat religions as just different brands of the same item.
In short cultural or inherited christianity is not the same religion as chosen, existentially chosen, born again christianity.
There seems to be different 'brands' of your own religion - Anglican, Roman Catholic etc: that seems self- evident.
So are 'born again' Christians mutually exclusive from common or garden ones, and if so in what ways?
-
Nope.
There seems to be different 'brands' of your own religion - Anglican, Roman Catholic etc: that seems self- evident.
So are 'born again' Christians mutually exclusive from common or garden ones, and if so in what ways?
As far as I'm aware the RCC doesn't recognise the notion of being 'born again' in the manner that it is used by evangelical protestants. I think the RCC considers that baptism provides an indelible spiritual mark of belonging to christ that cannot be erased. So once baptised you are christian and cannot be born 'again', so to speak. The short research report I linked to actually makes this point in the footnotes:
'according to the Church’s formal teaching, even those who no longer regard themselves as Catholics remain part of the Church by virtue of their baptism: e.g., ‘Baptism incorporates us into the Church’; ‘Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging
to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation’ (Catechism 1267, 1272).'
-
As far as I'm aware the RCC doesn't recognise the notion of being 'born again' in the manner that it is used by evangelical protestants. I think the RCC considers that baptism provides an indelible spiritual mark of belonging to christ that cannot be erased. So once baptised you are christian and cannot be born 'again', so to speak. The short research report I linked to actually makes this point in the footnotes:
'according to the Church’s formal teaching, even those who no longer regard themselves as Catholics remain part of the Church by virtue of their baptism: e.g., ‘Baptism incorporates us into the Church’; ‘Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging
to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation’ (Catechism 1267, 1272).'
This is indeed true. Add Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Lutheranism to that and various other churches that adhere to similar sacramental theology.
-
This is indeed true. Add Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Lutheranism to that and various other churches that adhere to similar sacramental theology.
Which makes Vlad's only true scotsman obsession with the need to be born again even more spurious, given that most christians (I would have thought considering this list of denominations) don't even recognise the notion of 'born again'.
Now there is a legitimate discussion to be had about the nature of belief and non-belief as we grow up as a child in terms of our upbringing and the nature of belief and non-belief that we settle into as an adult. There is, of course, a relationship between the two but clearly the belief/non-belief of a 10 year old is not the same as the belief/non-belief of a 30 year old.
-
To me studies like this treat religions as just different brands of the same item.
Not really - all they are asking about is whether someone considers themselves to be religious as an adult and if so to provide some detail on their level of religiosity (e.g. in this case mass attendance). And also to compare that with their upbringing in terms of religion. In both cases people may lie, they may subjectively have a different opinion on their upbringing etc, but you cannot really factor the out.
In short cultural or inherited christianity is not the same religion as chosen, existentially chosen, born again christianity.
Except you haven't been able to adequately define what you mean by these terms and your definitions seem to consider a person with a muslim upbringing who converts to christianity as an adult to be completely equivalent to a person with a christian upbringing who (at best) re-converts to christianity as an adult after some ill defined 'born again' event (something that wouldn't even be recognised in many christian denominations).
-
I think you and I have different definitions of "christian household" professor and the ability to categorise different religions.
Vlad - I think most people will understand what is meant by a christian upbringing.
My understanding is that the BSA survey uses a face to face approach where those participating in the survey answer a set of questions. The one for upbringing is:
'In what religion, if any, were you brought up?'
So the response is largely self defined, but the researchers are able to probe to understand a little more if necessary. Now I don't know what their structured probes might be, but presumably they may ask about elements of upbringing that might be considered to form part of a religious upbringing. The most obvious would be.
1. Did your parents choose a formal initiation ceremony into a particular religion (e.g. baptism for christians).
2. Did you complete any further initiation events (e.g. first communion, confirmation for christians)
3. Did you attend voluntary extra-curricular religious instruction classes as a child (e.g. Sunday school for christians).
4. Did you attend religious worship as a child, outside of special occasions as weddings, funerals and baptisms or as a requirement from schooling.
5. Did your parents choose to send you to a school with a particular religious faith ethos where this was a reasonable choice (i.e. available locally and non fee paying).
Now perhaps Vlad will just claim that these were all societally and culturally expected aspects of any upbringing back in the day and therefore nothing that signifies a specifically religious upbringing. But he'd be wrong. I'd accept that 1 was societally and culturally the norm back when I and Vlad were kids. But none of the others were. Most parents in the 50s, 60s and more recently did not choose 2-5 on my list for their children. This is what parents did who wanted a religious/christian upbringing for their child.
-
I don't really see the problem with the suggestion that upbringing has an affect on belief as an adult. It's not a moral judgement. Neither does it take anything away from your belief as an adult. It's just a statement of the obvious.
-
I don't really see the problem with the suggestion that upbringing has an affect on belief as an adult. It's not a moral judgement. Neither does it take anything away from your belief as an adult. It's just a statement of the obvious.
I agree and I'm not implying any value judgement, merely using it in the context of providing some evidence around Vlad's (undefined by him) distinction between 'inherited' religion/non-religion and 'chosen' religion/non-religion.
And in terms of upbringing - a religious upbringing is so important to the likelihood that someone will be religious as an adult that about 98% of current christians in the Uk had a christian upbringing. Without that christian upbringing, I would argue, the claims of christianity are largely unbelievable for individuals considering them as an adult without having been brought up to believe them.
And religions have known this for centuries - hence the creation of complex rituals etc aimed at inculcating belief into children at an early age.
-
I agree and I'm not implying any value judgement, merely using it in the context of providing some evidence around Vlad's (undefined by him) distinction between 'inherited' religion/non-religion and 'chosen' religion/non-religion.
And in terms of upbringing - a religious upbringing is so important to the likelihood that someone will be religious as an adult that about 98% of current christians in the Uk had a christian upbringing. Without that christian upbringing, I would argue, the claims of christianity are largely unbelievable for individuals considering them as an adult without having been brought up to believe them.
And religions have known this for centuries - hence the creation of complex rituals etc aimed at inculcating belief into children at an early age.
So to sum your positions up.
There is no choice being made unless you choose one of the other religions
Choice of remaining in your religion is not choice but delusion brought about by indoctrination in youth and intellectual infirmity
Atheism and agnosticism is exempted for the first two positions.
All religions conform to the methodology of the studies
The definitions have been agreed
Any disagreement or non conformity can be ignored.
-
So to sum your positions up.
There is no choice being made unless you choose one of the other religions
Choice of remaining in your religion is not choice but delusion brought about by indoctrination in youth and intellectual infirmity
Atheism and agnosticism is exempted for the first two positions.
All religions conform to the methodology of the studies
The definitions have been agreed
Any disagreement or non conformity can be ignored.
To sum up your position, Don Vlad: you seem to be frantically tilting at windmills (mostly imagined).
-
Vlad,
So to sum your positions up.
There is no choice being made unless you choose one of the other religions
Choice of remaining in your religion is not choice but delusion brought about by indoctrination in youth and intellectual infirmity
Atheism and agnosticism is exempted for the first two positions.
All religions conform to the methodology of the studies
The definitions have been agreed
Any disagreement or non conformity can be ignored.
That's quite the list of straw men you've posted there. It's very simple: people who come to a faith as adults are far more likely to have been brought up in the same faith and then returned to it than they are to have arrived at it as an impartial choice.
Now you might want to persuade yourself that that's just a remarkable co-incidence, but you can't change the fact of it.
-
Vlad,
That's quite the list of straw men you've posted there. It's very simple: people who come to a faith as adults are far more likely to have been brought up in the same faith and then returned to it than they are to have arrived at it as an impartial choice.
Now you might want to persuade yourself that that's just a remarkable co-incidence, but you can't change the fact of it.
I disagree that they return to the faith they had.It is a different faith. As a child you just have faith. To take up a faith, any faith in adult hood is chosen.
Would you say you had a religious upbringing? Is your agnosticism inherited or chosen?
-
So to sum your positions up.
There is no choice being made unless you choose one of the other religions
Choice of remaining in your religion is not choice but delusion brought about by indoctrination in youth and intellectual infirmity
Atheism and agnosticism is exempted for the first two positions.
All religions conform to the methodology of the studies
The definitions have been agreed
Any disagreement or non conformity can be ignored.
No one said any such thing.
-
I disagree that they return to the faith they had.It is a different faith. As a child you just have faith. To take up a faith, any faith in adult hood is chosen.
Seems like a false dichotomy to me - is it not the case that the tenets of the Christian faith would be exactly the same for both a life-long Anglican adherent or someone choosing to return to the Anglican fold after an absence? If not, what is the difference?
-
Seems like a false dichotomy to me - is it not the case that the tenets of the Christian faith would be exactly the same for both a life-long Anglican adherent or someone choosing to return to the Anglican fold after an absence? If not, what is the difference?
Perhaps Vlad is arguing that we shouldn't count those under 18 in any numbers of a religion?
-
Vlad,
I disagree that they return to the faith they had.It is a different faith. As a child you just have faith. To take up a faith, any faith in adult hood is chosen.
But it’s still the same faith – for Christians the ground has been prepared for you to return to the same suite of beliefs (a man/god Jesus, a resurrection, specific miracles etc) you accepted as true when younger. It’s relatively rare on the other hand for someone to be brought up with one such suite of faith beliefs to abandon them and then to embrace a different suite of faith beliefs: most converts to Christianity were brought up as Christians; most converts to Islam were brought up as Muslims etc.
That’s the point.
Would you say you had a religious upbringing? Is your agnosticism inherited or chosen?
That’s a false analogy. Would you say you had a leprechaunal upbringing? Is your agnosticism about leprechauns inherited or chosen?
-
I disagree that they return to the faith they had.It is a different faith. As a child you just have faith. To take up a faith, any faith in adult hood is chosen.
But I have already made that point - see reply 65.
However, there remains a clear distinction between:
1. Someone who as an adult follows a religion that they were inducted into as a child (e.g. baptism), learned all about in religious instruction lessons (e.g. in Sunday school), engaged in worship (attending church) engaged in a series of ceremonies aimed at instilling the religion further (first communion, confirmation) and had schooling which further embedded that religion (faith school) and
2. Someone who as an adult follows a religion that they had no meaningful involvement with until they'd reached adulthood.
These two situations cannot be compared.
And although I've used christianity as an example, the bits in brackets can easily be changed to the equivalents for other religions.
Would you say you had a religious upbringing? Is your agnosticism inherited or chosen?
Again I've already addressed this (see my definition in reply 38) in which I made it clear that the same distinctions should apply to those with non religious upbringing:
'For completeness we should also add in 'inherited non-religion' (someone brought up non religious who retains that non-religion as an adult) and 'chosen non religion' (someone brought up in a religious household who chooses to become non religious as a adult.'
-
Vlad,
But it’s still the same faith – for Christians the ground has been prepared for you to return to the same suite of beliefs (a man/god Jesus, a resurrection, specific miracles etc) you accepted as true when younger. It’s relatively rare on the other hand for someone to be brought up with one such suite of faith beliefs to abandon them and then to embrace a different suite of faith beliefs: most converts to Christianity were brought up as Christians; most converts to Islam were brought up as Muslims etc.
That’s the point.
That’s a false analogy. Would you say you had a leprechaunal upbringing? Is your agnosticism about leprechauns inherited or chosen?
Actually, in my own experience and reading former Christians who decided they didn't actually have a faith/ or it was their parents faith or lost their childhood faith one notes
quite a lot of key knowledge that is missing and misunderstood or not experienced. For people who aren't familiar at all with inherited religion thinking that infants can hold, understand,and hold onto doctrine and then this is just picked up with in adulthood, this might be a forgivable ignorance.
In terms of christianity repentance and faith/ relational trust can be missed even in aged churchgoers. Other religions have their own encounter and response moments even if that is as basic as seeing that religion in a different light.
Personality I think that lines of argument like yours suffer from problems introduced by Myers and Dawkin's thesis that atheists don't have to know about religion to talk expertly about it ha ha
-
Actually, in my own experience and reading former Christians who decided they didn't actually have a faith/ or it was their parents faith or lost their childhood faith one notes
quite a lot of key knowledge that is missing and misunderstood or not experienced. For people who aren't familiar at all with inherited religion thinking that infants can hold, understand,and hold onto doctrine and then this is just picked up with in adulthood, this might be a forgivable ignorance.
It's still all Christianity.
Personality I think that lines of argument like yours suffer from problems introduced by Myers and Dawkin's thesis that atheists don't have to know about religion to talk expertly about it ha ha
No their thesis is that you don't need to know the intricacies of Christian theology to understand that Christianity is bollocks. In any case, Richard Dawkins is quite knowledgable on the subject of Christianity. He probably knows more about it than most Christians.
-
Vlad,
Actually, in my own experience and reading former Christians who decided they didn't actually have a faith/ or it was their parents faith or lost their childhood faith one notes
quite a lot of key knowledge that is missing and misunderstood or not experienced. For people who aren't familiar at all with inherited religion thinking that infants can hold, understand,and hold onto doctrine and then this is just picked up with in adulthood, this might be a forgivable ignorance.
You’re still missing the point. Children told that the fundamental tenets of their faith (for Christians, the god of the Bible, a man/god Jesus, miracles, a resurrection that actually happened etc) who lapse and then “convert” will generally convert (ie, return) to the faith that still features the god of the Bible, a man/god Jesus, miracles, a resurrection that actually happened etc. It’s relatively rare for them to convert to a religion featuring, say, a prophet riding a winged horse, and vice versa.
This should give you pause at least. It doesn’t, but it should.
In terms of christianity repentance and faith/ relational trust can be missed even in aged churchgoers. Other religions have their own encounter and response moments even if that is as basic as seeing that religion in a different light.
Relevance?
Personality I think that lines of argument like yours suffer from problems introduced by Myers and Dawkin's thesis that atheists don't have to know about religion to talk expertly about it ha ha
Personally I think you’ve just tried yet another straw man (it’s often been the case that Dawkins et al know at least as much about the contents of the religions as the theists they debate) though, that said, you’re also trying the Courtier’s Reply fallacy again here. The claims that religions make are secondary to whether or not the justifying arguments for them are sound. I no more care about claims about the colour of leprechauns’ shoes than I care about the claim that Jesus was alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again when the justifying arguments for both claims are wrong.
-
Actually, in my own experience and reading former Christians who decided they didn't actually have a faith/ or it was their parents faith or lost their childhood faith one notes quite a lot of key knowledge that is missing and misunderstood or not experienced. For people who aren't familiar at all with inherited religion thinking that infants can hold, understand,and hold onto doctrine and then this is just picked up with in adulthood, this might be a forgivable ignorance.
As I said the way in which an adult and a child may engage with religion will, necessarily differ because one is ... err ... an adult and the other ... err ... a child. But that doesn't mean that the childhood experience becomes irrelevant. It clearly doesn't as by far and away the most common feature that defines adult christians is that they had a christian upbringing and, by the way, by far and away the most common feature that defines adult muslims is that they had a muslim upbringing etc.
Try this analogy - imagine an adult professional violin player whose parents took them to violin lessons from the age of five. Now the way in which that adult engages with their instrument will be hugely different to the manner in which they did so as a child. And perhaps their level of knowledge and talent as an adult far outways the knowledge and talent of the parents. But it would be complete nonsense to dismiss the violin-playing upbringing that the parents chose for that child as somehow irrelevant to the adult violin player.