Christians outnumbered by people with no religion, report by senior lecturer

[Humph Warden Bennett]

We don't have mass migration from Latin America. The media have reported that Poles in particular have boosted RCC numbers.

Come to London (The City) and Westminster. See how many Hispanics/Latinos you will see here. Then go to Elephant & Castle/Peckham/New Cross, you will see many more. Yes the Poles are RC, but Romanians, and Bulgarians, and Russians, are mostly Orthodox.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Another option of course is that people recognize that religions have not met their burden of proof, so can be discounted as probably not true.

People are more educated these days, and fantastic claims tend to be questioned more, and when they are, they are found wanting.

Er, No.

[Shaker]

Er, yes.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Berational,

Er!! stick it on the list, but,

People are more educated these days,

more educated, less educated, differently educated, can't be bothered educated.

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

Dear Berational,

Er!! stick it on the list, but,  more educated, less educated, differently educated, can't be bothered educated.

Gonnagle.

Perhaps more critical of fantastical claims.

[Rhiannon]

I'm not entirely sure I'd put it down to better education. I think it's a cultural shift that's been followed by a change in belief. Christianity no longer forms our cultural glue, and most people have discovered that they really have no need of it at all.

[BeRational]

I'm not entirely sure I'd put it down to better education. I think it's a cultural shift that's been followed by a change in belief. Christianity no longer forms our cultural glue, and most people have discovered that they really have no need of it at all.

I think we are more sceptical, and demand more reasoned arguments before believing fantastic claims.

We do not respect authority as much, and we feel we can question everything.

[Rhiannon]

I agree about the respect for authority - not necessarily over fantastic claims (the interest in mediumship, ghosts and the paranormal hasn't diminished, and New Age spirituality is thriving), but the right of the church to dictate what is acceptable, moral or right and what isn't. We have very different ideas based on new understanding now on what is good for families, children, relationships, society and individual wellbeing.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon and Breational,

The list keeps expanding.



1. Complacency within the Church.

2. Has something replaced religion.

3. The Church is no longer at the heart of a community.

4. The various atheist organisations are now making their presence felt.

5. The Church is outdated.

6. Pagan religions are on the rise.

7. Bad press ( deservedly ) over the past decade.

8. Sunday's are no longer sacred, as in families can find so much more to do on a Sunday morning.

9. A combination of all the above.

10. Better educated.

11. We are more sceptical.

12. Christianity no longer forms our cultural glue.

13. No respect for authority, and we feel we can question everything. ( this one I like ).

14. We have very different ideas based on new understanding now on what is good for families, children, relationships, society and individual wellbeing. ( Interesting )


Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

I agree about the respect for authority - not necessarily over fantastic claims (the interest in mediumship, ghosts and the paranormal hasn't diminished, and New Age spirituality is thriving), but the right of the church to dictate what is acceptable, moral or right and what isn't. We have very different ideas based on new understanding now on what is good for families, children, relationships, society and individual wellbeing.

Yes indeed - spot the members of this forum for example who aver on absolutely no grounds whatever that homosexuality is 'bad for society' in some vague, wavy-handy way that they never quite scruple to pin down.

In the meantime, people see work colleagues, friends, family members, even their own children in same sex relationships which in terms of their everyday joys and pains are exactly the same as heterosexual ones, and justifiably wonder where the hell all this harm to society bollocks comes from.

[Rhiannon]

It wasn't that long ago that abused women were returned to their husbands because the church taught that divorce was bad for society.

[Shaker]

I would add:

15. Existential (in)security. This has been invoked to explain the anomalous religiosity of the USA (which is of course now changing). The evidence is abundant and clear: religious adherence flourishes where people feel that their lives are precarious and teetering on the brink of uncertainty. It's not coincidental that countries which have the safety net of a strong welfare state for people to fall back on in times of need - which means much of Europe - have lower rates of religious adherence. If people have a degree of social security and don't live in fear that the loss of a job or illness will see them out on the streets, and don't have massive bills to pay just through being sick, they're less likely - so the thesis goes - to look outside of the world for a source of help.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Er, yes.

No more than communism. Those who thought that communism died with 1989 were proved wrong too.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

Ah right! Good news for the Churches then, keep voting Tory and the Churches will soon be full, I may have to revise my theory that the Tories are the most anti Christian party in this country.

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

It's recognised that reaching out to those in the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society is also a good way to evangelise. See Christians Against Poverty with their free holidays for those who 'wish to learn more about Jesus.'

[Brownie]

It wasn't that long ago that abused women were returned to their husbands because the church taught that divorce was bad for society.

That is very true with a knock on effect of the police force being reluctant to get involved in ''domestics''.  Children were also considered to be the property of their parents and parents had absolute rights over them up until the age of 21.  Yet the Bible clearly states, in addition to women 'submitting' to their husbands, that husbands must love their wives more than they love themselves and that, though children must 'honour' parents, parents must not scandalise and frustrate their children.   I fear that some of that was lost along the way.

Some of those old fashioned attitudes were in place when I was growing up, gradually diluting of course.  My generation were quite bolshie.

[Hope]

It's recognised that reaching out to those in the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society is also a good way to evangelise. See Christians Against Poverty with their free holidays for those who 'wish to learn more about Jesus.'

Could you provide us with a reference to this 'offer', Rhi.

[Hope]

It isn't, of course; as Owly has said, it's just a term he's heard used but doesn't quite understand what it means.

I think he's gleaned the word from you - and the lack of understanding from you, as well, Shakes.

[Shaker]

I think he's gleaned the word from you

It's a phrase, not a word. I understand what it means; he clearly doesn't. Try Stephen Taylor's challenge: point out exactly and precisely where in the OP any argument (not even one based on raw numbers ... any argument at all) is made by Owlswing.

Good luck.

and the lack of understanding from you, as well, Shakes.

Ah, ever the tu quoque with you when devoid of any actual argument ... it saves on the tricky things like thinking, I guess.

I can tell you exactly what the common logical fallacy known as the argumentum ad populum is and why Owlswing's OP isn't one - which lack of understanding are you referring to? Would you like me to walk you through it step by step?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I think he's gleaned the word from you - and the lack of understanding from you, as well, Shakes.

Maybe you could point out where in the OP the argumentum ad populum occurs. As far as I can see it isn't an argument, it's simply the reporting of some data.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

Maybe you could point out where in the OP the argumentum ad populum occurs. As far as I can see it isn't an argument, it's simply the reporting of some data.

It doesn't - for it to have been an argumentum ad populum there would have had to have been an "argumentum" rather than just a reporting. It's just another of Trollboy's misunderstandings and false accusations. Standard stuff.

[Rhiannon]

Could you provide us with a reference to this 'offer', Rhi.

The church here used to support the charity. The families it supported were offered free holidays at Bible camps set up at various holiday centres. This was featured in their newsletter that was distributed to supporters and families gave testimonies as to their experiences.

It might not be on their website of course.

Eta second blog entry down, Hope.

https://foreverisnow.wordpress.com/category/christians-against-poverty/discovery-breaks/

[Shaker]

Maybe you could point out where in the OP the argumentum ad populum occurs. As far as I can see it isn't an argument, it's simply the reporting of some data.

Quite. I too await a reply with interest.

Not that we'll get one, of course, because there are numerous difficult questions that Hopalong has never answered, some of them dating back almost a year. But it doesn't hurt to add another one to the ever-growing list.

[Hope]

These figures come from the 2011 census - try another squirm-out as this one doesn't work!

Actually, Owl, I think you'll find - from your own OP - that they date from 2014. 

However, that is irrelevant, because although the vast majority of people in the UK have traditionally aligned themselves with either Christian or CoE when filling in census and social attitude forms, we don't really know how many of them were actually answering the question correctly.  If, as has been pointed out several times on this board, the number of people who attend church is a better figure to work with, it means that thousands (maybe millions) of British people have potentially - perhaps unwittingly - been perjuring themselves when completing such forms (iirc, it is illegal to give false information at least when responding to the census though its not illegal not to complete it).

As I've mentioned at least once before, the figures that accompanied the Welsh Revival of 1904-05 suggest that nowhere near 100% of the Welsh people were believers prior to the revival.  The reports of the time suggest around 100,000 conversions in, mostly, South Wales.  That would have been about 10% of the South Wales population and about 7% of the total Welsh population (2,033,287 in the 1901 census).  I doubt that all the non-believers in the country converted in that 12-14 month period.

It is very easy to use the church attendance figures as an indicator of the number of believers (realistically, it probably gives an upper limit to that figure) but we have absolutely no idea of how many of those attending prior to the late 40s did so out of a sense of social duty/tradition/habit and how many did so out of conviction.  Even today, no-one truly counts the believers as opposed to the attendees.  The BSA surveys get closest, but since the first of these took place in the early 80s, it is hard to know what the figures were prior to 1983.  Equally, what does a 'belief in a God' mean to most people; what does the term 'religion' mean?  In years gone past, I have often put myself in the category of 'of no religion' because I don't see Christianity as traditionally religious.  Churchianity (loyalty to the church rather than Christianity http://www.collinsdictionary.com) may well be, but the two are very different.

[floo]

It is probably true that quite a number of people would describe themselves as Christians, possibly because they were christened as babies, but only attend church for weddings, christenings and funerals.