Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps your parents were a bit wary of his rather extreme approach to religion. .

No more extreme than going to sunday school surely which according to you is vital for adult christianity (except for the Chinese it seems).

Re; Voas and the decline of religion in the west. There is an East you know. Seems to have increased around 10 times in China so, in terms of a world religion?

[ProfessorDavey]

No more extreme than going to sunday school surely which according to you is vital for adult christianity (except for the Chinese it seems).

Re; Voas and the decline of religion in the west. There is an East you know. Seems to have increased around 10 times in China so, in terms of a world religion?

It is extremely difficult to draw any conclusions about changes in religiosity in countries that have had varying levels of religious freedoms over the past few decades, such as China. So if more people in china indicate they affiliate as christian is that because there are more christians or they feel more able to say they are christian because restrictions on religions have been relaxed over the past few decades.

No doubt if Saudi Arabia suddenly declared it was fine to be atheist ... or gay ... you'd likely get an huge apparent increase in the numbers of gay people and atheists in Saudi Arabia. But it wouldn't necessarily reflect a real increase, just that those people could now publicly state that they are gay or atheist with fear of state sanctioned reprisals.

You may as well suggest that Poland had a massive increase in christians when communism fell - they didn't, it was just that it became OK to be seen to be christian again.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your comparison with sunday school and the the literary scholarship of a jewish or islamic  scripture class is overplayed.

Not at all - they are entirely analogous institutions. All aim at religious instruction, are usually directly linked to and run through a place of worship and all often have as part of their remit preparation for a religious rite of passage.

The reason why you might think sunday school is somehow different is because the UK is a culturally christian culture and therefore attending sunday school is seen as broadly more normalised that attending jewish or islamic scripture class. If you went to Israel or Pakistan the opposite would seem to be the case.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is an East you know.

There is indeed - which doesn't just involve China but many other countries. So you've cherry picked China as it supports your thesis of conversion to christianity (except it doesn't really as my post above indicates).

But what about other major countries in the region:

Japan - well the proportion of christians hasn't really changed over the past decades
South Korea - we seem to have gone beyond 'peak christianity' (driven from the Korean war) and the proportion of the population affliliating as christians is beginning to decline.
Philippines - very hight proportion affiliate as christian but this is on the decline
India - proportion of christians hasn't really budged since the 1950s

And more worryingly for christians (and religion generally) in pretty well all of these countries the younger population is less likely to be religious (and christian) than older people suggesting the same problem with transmission of religion that we see here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is indeed - which doesn't just involve China but many other countries. So you've cherry picked China as it supports your thesis of conversion to christianity (except it doesn't really as my post above indicates).

But what about other major countries in the region:

Japan - well the proportion of christians hasn't really changed over the past decades
South Korea - we seem to have gone beyond 'peak christianity' (driven from the Korean war) and the proportion of the population affliliating as christians is beginning to decline.
Philippines - very hight proportion affiliate as christian but this is on the decline
India - proportion of christians hasn't really budged since the 1950s

And more worryingly for christians (and religion generally) in pretty well all of these countries the younger population is less likely to be religious (and christian) than older people suggesting the same problem with transmission of religion that we see here.

But you have explained why there are likely to be more apatheists. It is because they absorb the weltbild of their culture which as we know has been secular humanist. As indeed you have. Christianity is now the subversive in the UK

Viewing religion and it's truth in terms of numbers begins to look like the Fred Astaire and Ginger Roberts of argumentum ad Populum.

Whether Secular Humanism in the UK survives the coming threat to the economy and our bountiful way of life will be interesting to watch.

[torridon]

If you were born in Bracknell Berkshire you wouldn't have a hunger for the bible. What I am saying is my hunger for the bible was not cultural so for me there is but one source of that transformation. Prior to a period of Enlightenment of the bible I considered church going a campy cultural pretence but suddenly experienced the fellowship qualities.

Since the UK has been secular and technological for decades my religious beliefs are not cultural but from God and most of your secular beliefs are cultural.

None of us completely escape our cultural influences.  If you'd been born in Pakistan or Afghanistan then you would have taken a different path and it would be the Qur'an you would be hungering for. This is the ambient cultural influences working through individuals. Had you been a labourer in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, it wouldn't be Christ that was the object of your devotion, but more likely Osiris, or Horus.  If you were born into a family of Mesolithic hunter gatherers, you would have been an animist.  We are all products of the happenstance influences that form us.

[ProfessorDavey]

Viewing religion and it's truth in terms of numbers begins to look like the Fred Astaire and Ginger Roberts of argumentum ad Populum.

Vlad - that's a bit rich from someone obsessed with apparent (albeit not likely to be true) conversion to and increase in numbers of christians in China.

Also I challenge your use of the word truth - for something to be considered truth or true, or certainly objectively 'true for everyone' there needs to be evidence to support this claim. There is no evidence to support the claims of religion, those claims are merely opinion, faith, beliefs or assertions - you could argue that they are subjectively 'true for me' but something that is 'true for me' is merely an opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Whether Secular Humanism in the UK survives the coming threat to the economy and our bountiful way of life will be interesting to watch.

Not sure what you mean by Secularism and Humanism (capitalised) - if you mean NSS and HumanistsUK, then I've little doubt they will survive.

And if you mean secularism and humanism, well I think they are alive and well and one strong message from the pandemic is that (largely) people have gone with the science, the evidence base etc in terms of dealing with the pandemic, in other words taken the secular approach. And again (largely) people have been willing to change their ways of life in support of others more vulnerable, a classic humanist trait.

On the broader issue of prosperity - I doubt very much that the economic hit in the UK will have any meaningful effect on religiosity and its ongoing decline in the UK. However there is a broader global point, but not one that is very comfortable reading for religious apologist. Levels of religiosity correlate exceptionally closely with undesirable characteristics, whether that be poverty, poor life expectancy, poor education standards, economic inequality. So if you create a society where people are more prosperous, healthier, better educated, healthier, with greater equality as night follows day religiosity declines. So for religions that claim to want to help people there is a huge dilemma - if society genuinely becomes better religion is in trouble. Not surprising that religions have often and still do pay lip service to improving society - they need a steady supply of the impoverished to 'help' and also to keep their pews filled.

[Outrider]

But you have explained why there are likely to be more apatheists.

No, you've interpreted it as such, but not supported that interpretation with anything.

It is because they absorb the weltbild of their culture which as we know has been secular humanist. As indeed you have. Christianity is now the subversive in the UK.

Ahahahahahhahahahahahah. Oh, dear, that Christian training to try to depict yourself as the plucky upstart shouting out against the establishment... you are the establishment. The Queen, the Tory party...

Viewing religion and it's truth

What 'truth' would that be?

... in terms of numbers begins to look like the Fred Astaire and Ginger Roberts of argumentum ad Populum.

If you're trying to imply validity by dint of popular support, yes, but if you're noting the decline of religious belief as a society produces actual solutions to life's problems rather than a philosophical means to accept them, then the numbers are pretty significant.

Whether Secular Humanism in the UK survives the coming threat to the economy and our bountiful way of life will be interesting to watch.

It's not the 'coming threat to the economy' (climate issues? gas prices? Tory regressive taxation policies?) that pose a problem for secular values, it's the attacks on freedom of speech, legal challenges to the government and the right to protest that threaten secular values.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad - that's a bit rich from someone obsessed with apparent (albeit not likely to be true) conversion to and increase in numbers of christians in China.

I thought it was you who appealed straight away to ''religion in numbers''. I held off talking about China until quite a way into the conversation and then only to show that decline in christianity has been preceded by a rise in Christianity. Conversion is a recognise term in religion. Active seems like a word from social science. Voas seems to have a narrow study period, seems to have the opposite of survivorship bias, and restricts his geopolitical area of study.

Also I challenge your use of the word truth - for something to be considered truth or true, or certainly objectively 'true for everyone' there needs to be evidence to support this claim.

I am one of those christians who believe it is true for everyone. Just like you believe it not to be true for anyone

There is no evidence to support the claims of religion, those claims are merely opinion, faith, beliefs or assertions

There is no evidence to support philosophical empiricism, and yet here you are.

[ekim]

"Religion is the opium of the people."  Karl Marx.

I wonder who now controls the market ..... https://russianreport.wordpress.com/religion-in-russia/orthodoxy-in-russia-today/

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure what you mean by Secularism and Humanism (capitalised) - if you mean NSS and HumanistsUK, then I've little doubt they will survive.

I was thinking more of the secularism and humanism abroad in the country, particularly the humanism which supports religionless goodness particularly the retreat of goodness. In fact the new prevaling view may soon become ''human as potential danger.'' I'm sure the NSS and HUK will survive much reduced but always a minority commitment

And if you mean secularism and humanism, well I think they are alive and well and one strong message from the pandemic is that (largely) people have gone with the science,

Science isn't humanism and as I've said proper climate science shows humanity to be the danger

the evidence base etc in terms of dealing with the pandemic, in other words taken the secular approach. And again (largely) people have been willing to change their ways of life in support of others more vulnerable, a classic humanist trait.

That will have to be assessed in the light of what we vote for and how those who could not work from home are treated in future.

On the broader issue of prosperity - I doubt very much that the economic hit in the UK will have any meaningful effect on religiosity and its ongoing decline in the UK. However  there is a broader global point, but not one that is very comfortable reading for religious apologist. Levels of religiosity correlate exceptionally closely with undesirable characteristics, whether that be poverty, poor life expectancy, poor education standards, economic inequality. So if you create a society where people are more prosperous, healthier, better educated, healthier, with greater equality as night follows day religiosity declines. So for religions that claim to want to help people there is a huge dilemma - if society genuinely becomes better religion is in trouble. Not surprising that religions have often and still do pay lip service to improving society - they need a steady supply of the impoverished to 'help' and also to keep their pews filled.

The hit as I say will be on the rose tinted humanist perspective. What you say about things getting better and better is nothing but the old mans onward progressive march fallacy.

As a public and campaigning atheist, that is part of your set of beliefs. Religion takes a longer view. Social science is less good at prediction than pure science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Religion is the opium of the people."  Karl Marx.

I wonder who now controls the market ..... https://russianreport.wordpress.com/religion-in-russia/orthodoxy-in-russia-today/

Putin controls everything in Russia......Former KGB in soviet, atheist government?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you've interpreted it as such, but not supported that interpretation with anything.

Well the figures seem to show that 53% of the UK have no religion. Atheists seem to go full UKIP on this reckoning that, that just about wraps it up for religion and NSS and HUK want to go full secular(what do we want? ...secularism.....when do we want it?...NOW!).

Unfortunately I think most of those are apatheist rather than public and campaigning atheists, as uninterested in what you have to say as what I have to say.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of us completely escape our cultural influences.

Well I haven't and neither has Dawkins

  If you'd been born in Pakistan or Afghanistan then you would have taken a different path and it would be the Qur'an you would be hungering for. This is the ambient cultural influences working through individuals. Had you been a labourer in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, it wouldn't be Christ that was the object of your devotion, but more likely Osiris, or Horus.  If you were born into a family of Mesolithic hunter gatherers, you would have been an animist.  We are all products of the happenstance influences that form us.

You go by what lights you have I suppose.

[jeremyp]

A new understanding of things is more than just a vague feeling. I realise we are away from numbers and into stuff that's hard to quantify.

But you don't know why. You just assume that it's because of your god.

Why would an old hebrew book suddenly become of value and comprehensive to me? Why should the emphasis be on Christ?
Of course you are the last person to ask.

Because those are the religious accoutrements with which you have become familiar owing to your upbringing.

You have no evidence that it actually was the Christian god that brought you too those things. As I said, Loki is a consummate trickster. He could easily have fooled you.

[jeremyp]

But the mystery is surely either why are me and anchorman Christians when yours and jeremy's steepage in it seems at least similar and you profess differently? That seems to cut right across your theory.

We need to have an agreement on what it means to be immersed in religion surely because we are at odds over that.

What is the difference between becoming a Christian as an adult and conversion to Christianity as an adult?

Jeremy seems to be the one brought up in the christian tradition.

The only difference between my upbringing and that of my non religious friends is that my parents took me to church on Sundays. We all sat through the school lessons about religion. We all listened to our teacher talking us through the Old Testament stories in the Bible (missing out the bloodbaths and the sexual perversions etc).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only difference between my upbringing and that of my non religious friends is that my parents took me to church on Sundays. We all sat through the school lessons about religion. We all listened to our teacher talking us through the Old Testament stories in the Bible (missing out the bloodbaths and the sexual perversions etc).

We also did the arabian knights and stories from china. That's what a good liberal education does for you.

[jeremyp]

We also did the arabian knights and stories from china. That's what a good liberal education does for you.

So? In our RE lessons, there were two terms when we did "comparative religion" which means religions other than Christianity. That doesn't mean we weren't brought up in a Christian culture.

[ProfessorDavey]

I thought it was you who appealed straight away to ''religion in numbers''.

My interest and my engagement in this thread has largely been about explain why the numbers change - something you seem unable, or unwilling to grasp. In your eyes religiosity going up and down seems to be akin to this years' fad, next year we will see something different. When you understand why the numbers are changing in the UK (and many other similar countries) then you will understand that the effect is locked in for the next 40 years, probably more. The one caveat being migration of people into the UK, but this isn't really a change in religiosity, merely moving religious or non religious people from one place to another.

I held off talking about China until quite a way into the conversation and then only to show that decline in christianity has been preceded by a rise in Christianity.

While there may have been changes in active participation in christianity in the UK over the past centuries you'd have to go a very, very long way back for an increase in the proportion of people in the UK who believed in christianity - probably 1000 years.

Conversion is a recognise term in religion. Active seems like a word from social science.

Actually conversion is an extremely hard thing to assess except by proxy as it really reflects a change in internal belief. Conversion is typically assessed by one of a number of aspects of religiosity, typically self-identified affiliation, importance and active involvement in christianity. Active involvement (i.e. activity) is far better recognised and easier to assess - you can actually measure the numbers of people attending worship, you cannot easily assess conversion as you get people like you and AM who claim conversion when in reality this is nothing of the sort as your upbringing involved heavy dollops of Christianity which you retained as adults.

Voas seems to have a narrow study period, seems to have the opposite of survivorship bias, and restricts his geopolitical area of study.

Actually his studies have sufficient understanding and length of data (you need a cohort approach to understand what is going on) to be able to accurately tell the story of the past 100 years and predict what will happen until the cohort of current teenagers have largely died, by about 2080. That sounds pretty long range to me. 

I am one of those christians who believe it is true for everyone.

But that is merely a belief, a subjective opinion not backed up by evidence - hence it cannot be considered to be an objective truth, at best it is a subjective truth.

[ProfessorDavey]

The only difference between my upbringing and that of my non religious friends is that my parents took me to church on Sundays.

But I think that is very significant - where parents actively engage their child in christianity (e.g. by taking them to church, sending them to Sunday school, choosing a faith school) it sends a message that christianity is important, and I would suspect, that the beliefs of that religion are true (whether overtly expressed or just through their actions of being engaged in christianity and requiring you to be too). That seems to me to be a major difference between your friends' upbringing and yours. And this difference seems to be critically important in the likelihood of a person choosing to be religious as an adult.

[jeremyp]

But I think that is very significant - where parents actively engage their child in christianity

Yes, it is significant. It's why I was a Christian and remained so until I was about 20.

(e.g. by taking them to church, sending them to Sunday school, choosing a faith school) it sends a message that christianity is important, and I would suspect, that the beliefs of that religion are true (whether overtly expressed or just through their actions of being engaged in christianity and requiring you to be too). That seems to me to be a major difference between your friends' upbringing and yours. And this difference seems to be critically important in the likelihood of a person choosing to be religious as an adult.

I would say all my friends knew what the Bible was and had some idea of the stories it told. They were all aware of the significance of Christmas and Easter in Christian tradition. They all were aware of the claims for the resurrection. On the other hand, very few of them knew anything about what was in the Koran or the traditions of Islam or Hinduism etc. If any of them had a conversion experience, it would almost certainly be to Christianity because that is what they knew.

[Outrider]

Well the figures seem to show that 53% of the UK have no religion.

Right.

Atheists seem to go full UKIP on this reckoning that, that just about wraps it up for religion and NSS and HUK want to go full secular(what do we want? ...secularism.....when do we want it?...NOW!).

You think? There are some, I presume, but certainly here you tend to get the perspective that there are probably a range of viewpoints in there - from the 'spiritual but not religious' through the 'vaguely a believer but not sure in what' through to the full-blow, nail-spitting antitheists that only you appear to be aware of. The point, though, is that the group of 'non-religious' has been growing for some time, continues to grow, and now outweighs all the various 'religious' put together. Exactly how many of those are 'proper' atheists might be relevant if the discussion were 'god' or 'gods', but when the topic is religions then the status of 'non-religious' is significant in its own right.

Unfortunately I think most of those are apatheist rather than public and campaigning atheists, as uninterested in what you have to say as what I have to say.

Why is that unfortunate? If a significant portion of the populace can go about their lives and not feel that they need to get exercised about it, then in some ways that's a good thing - it means that religion isn't having the day-to-day pernicious effect on their lives that has been the case in the past.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, it is significant. It's why I was a Christian and remained so until I was about 20.

Indeed because you were brought up as christian and then became one of the >40% of people brought up christian who chose to become non religious as an adult.

I would say all my friends knew what the Bible was and had some idea of the stories it told. They were all aware of the significance of Christmas and Easter in Christian tradition. They all were aware of the claims for the resurrection. On the other hand, very few of them knew anything about what was in the Koran or the traditions of Islam or Hinduism etc. If any of them had a conversion experience, it would almost certainly be to Christianity because that is what they knew.

True, although if their upbringing was basically non religious (with the general 1970s cultural christianity swirling around) then the likelihood of them becoming religious as adults is exceptionally small even if in the unlikely event they did become religious it is like to be christianity rather than any other religion.

[ProfessorDavey]

Unfortunately I think most of those are apatheist rather than public and campaigning atheists, as uninterested in what you have to say as what I have to say.

Nope I don't think that is true. I certainly agree that most people are neither tub thumping atheist campaigners nor tub thumping christian apologists, but that doesn't mean they have no opinion on the key concerns of the secular campaigners. So polling shows that majorities (in many cases very large majorities) do not want enduring influences of religious organisations to continue within the public domain, so for example being opposed to state funded faith schools, wanting automatic seats for bishops to be removed from the HoLs, wanting the CofE status as the established religion to be abolished, thinking that religion should not have a special influence on public policy, that the law should apply to everyone equally, regardless of religion.

So many of these people may be apatheists, but they seem to align in terms of their views with the secularists, not the religionists.