Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Right.

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.

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.

But at the moment it still leaves a significant number of the population that do consider themselves religiously affiliated so the case for a wholly secular society with the religion expunged is about as firm as the case for Brexit. There seem to be lotsa of things that have a pernicious effect and the ''atheist bus ''type case you make is and has proved to be rather simplistic. Apatheists are less likely to call revenge on religion I would imagine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

I think you are confusing the nefarious desire of religious bastards to exercise evil political control for, certainly Christianity here. I think there must be a fair amount of people that would want religion to be represented in government and the case for there not being is peculiarly exclusive from the Humanists IMV who no doubt want appropriate gender and professional representation. You seem to present the expunging of religion as a masturbatory secular revenge fantasy rather than a balanced idea IMHO.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you are confusing the nefarious desire of religious bastards to exercise evil political control for, certainly Christianity here. I think there must be a fair amount of people that would want religion to be represented in government and the case for there not being is peculiarly exclusive from the Humanists IMV who no doubt want appropriate gender and professional representation. You seem to present the expunging of religion as a masturbatory secular revenge fantasy rather than a balanced idea IMHO.

No one is arguing that people who are religious should not be involved in politics, government, public life etc in exactly the same way as people who are not religious.

The point is about religious organisations and religious people getting privileged access and special privileges on the basis of their religion that are not afforded to others who are not religious. And that is a point that seems to be supported broadly, including, presumably those people you describe as apatheist. So no-one is arguing (or at least I'm not aware of anyone who is) that a christian person should not be allowed to be a member of parliament (that would be totally the opposite of secularism) the argument is that leading members of specific religious organisations should not have a set number of automatic seats in parliament. The argument isn't that religious organisations shouldn't be allowed to exist (that would be totally the opposite of secularism) it is that the law should apply equally to religious and non religious organisations etc etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

But at the moment it still leaves a significant number of the population that do consider themselves religiously affiliated so the case for a wholly secular society with the religion expunged is about as firm as the case for Brexit. There seem to be lotsa of things that have a pernicious effect and the ''atheist bus ''type case you make is and has proved to be rather simplistic. Apatheists are less likely to call revenge on religion I would imagine.

Well as you mentioned brexit - it is the religious people (and in particular christians) wot won it for brexit!! Non religious people voted solidly remain.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No one is arguing that people who are religious should not be involved in politics, government, public life etc in exactly the same way as people who are not religious.

The point is about religious organisations and religious people getting privileged access and special privileges on the basis of their religion that are not afforded to others who are not religious. And that is a point that seems to be supported broadly, including, presumably those people you describe as apatheist. So no-one is arguing (or at least I'm not aware of anyone who is) that a christian person should not be allowed to be a member of parliament (that would be totally the opposite of secularism) the argument is that leading members of specific religious organisations should not have a set number of automatic seats in parliament. The argument isn't that religious organisations shouldn't be allowed to exist (that would be totally the opposite of secularism) it is that the law should apply equally to religious and non religious organisations etc etc.

Religious representation is probably one issue facing what has turned out to be a generally Gameable system of representation which is way overdue reformation.

However An organisation which calls itself non religious or secular campaigning to eliminate the representation of religion as an aspect of peoples lives goes against the spirit of increasing representation rather than diminishing it. It automatically shuts down an avenue of expression.

[ProfessorDavey]

Religious representation is probably one issue facing what has turned out to be a generally Gameable system of representation which is way overdue reformation.

Not quite sure what you mean, but if you think that religious representation needs reform then I, and most people in the UK, agree.

However An organisation which calls itself non religious or secular campaigning to eliminate the representation of religion as an aspect of peoples lives goes against the spirit of increasing representation rather than diminishing it. It automatically shuts down an avenue of expression.

Any organisation can campaign for whatever it wants - that doesn't oblige the government to pay heed.

But all the NSS are asking for is a level playing field - they don't think that there should be automatic seats in parliament for leading members of religious organisations, but nor are they arguing for automatic seats for leading members of the NSS.

[ProfessorDavey]

... campaigning to eliminate the representation of religion as an aspect of peoples lives ...

They are doing nothing of the sort. Since when have the NSS suggested that religious people should not be able to:

1). Vote
2). Stand for parliament and if elected hold a seat
3). Campaign on subjects they feel are important to them
4). Have the freedom to engage in their religion
5). Be appointed to the house of lords
etc, etc

All that is being asked for is that there is a level playing field regardless of whether you are religious or not religious.

[jeremyp]

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.
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.

Exactly.

[ProfessorDavey]

Exactly.

Actually having thought about this some more I think it might be slightly more complicated.

It is absolutely clear that people brought up within a religious tradition will remain religious as adults nearly alway retain their childhood religion rather than convert to a new religion. So cradle christians become adult christians, cradle jews become adult jews, cradle hindus become adult hindus etc.

However I'm not so certain about people brought up in a non religious tradition and become that very, vary rare person - choosing to be religious as an adult while not having been brought up religious. I'm not sure these (highly unusual) people necessarily fold into the religion that formed the cultural backdrop of their upbringing, so christianity in the UK. I suspect they might be rather more promiscuous (if you excuse the phrase) and convert to a rather broader range of religions. I'll do some digging on the research on this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually having thought about this some more I think it might be slightly more complicated.

It is absolutely clear that people brought up within a religious tradition will remain religious as adults nearly alway retain their childhood religion rather than convert to a new religion. So cradle christians become adult christians, cradle jews become adult jews, cradle hindus become adult hindus etc.

However I'm not so certain about people brought up in a non religious tradition and become that very, vary rare person - choosing to be religious as an adult while not having been brought up religious. I'm not sure these (highly unusual) people necessarily fold into the religion that formed the cultural backdrop of their upbringing, so christianity in the UK. I suspect they might be rather more promiscuous (if you excuse the phrase) and convert to a rather broader range of religions. I'll do some digging on the research on this.

Just a reminder that you haven't explained why people who reject faith in God come back to it and how the christian child is brainwashed a la The manchurian candidate and becomes a sleeper until activation.

I don't think there is any delineation here between a cultural christian and a convicted or converted one.

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually having thought about this some more I think it might be slightly more complicated.

It is absolutely clear that people brought up within a religious tradition will remain religious as adults nearly alway retain their childhood religion rather than convert to a new religion. So cradle christians become adult christians, cradle jews become adult jews, cradle hindus become adult hindus etc.

However I'm not so certain about people brought up in a non religious tradition and become that very, vary rare person - choosing to be religious as an adult while not having been brought up religious. I'm not sure these (highly unusual) people necessarily fold into the religion that formed the cultural backdrop of their upbringing, so christianity in the UK. I suspect they might be rather more promiscuous (if you excuse the phrase) and convert to a rather broader range of religions. I'll do some digging on the research on this.

Just a tiny proportion of nones (people brought up in a non religious manner) become religious as adults. However of those that do about 70% become christians, while 30% become adherents of a non christian religion. So despite the prevailing cultural christianity of the UK a fairly sizeable proportion of cradle non religious people who become religious as adults opt for religions other than christianity.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just a reminder that you haven't explained why people who reject faith in God come back to it ...

I think I've explained it many times - typically this occurs in the late teens and early 20s with cradle christians comfortably back in the fold (if they are going to return) but their mid 20s. This is classic 'rejecting upbringing' behaviour seen in all sorts of aspects of upbringing at that age as kids push back against their parents' beliefs and expectations. Once that rebellious phase is over those people either recognise that they don't need religion or fold back into the religion of their childhood.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think I've explained it many times - typically this occurs in the late teens and early 20s with cradle christians comfortably back in the fold (if they are going to return) but their mid 20s. This is classic 'rejecting upbringing' behaviour seen in all sorts of aspects of upbringing. Once that rebellious phase is over those people either recognise that they don't need religion or fold back into the religion of their childhood.

And he introduces something else he'll likely leave unexplained ''Folding back into the religion of childhood''. Even Dawkin's argues there are no such things as Christian or Moslem children. Are you sneekily caricaturing religion as childish perchance?

I'm not sure your ''process'' doesn't apply to any weltbilt. In which case you never rejected a secular humanist philosophical empirical scientism.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think there is any delineation here between a cultural christian and a convicted or converted one.

I have no idea what you mean by a convicted christian!

But of course there is a difference between a cultural christian - someone not brought up to be christian but who will absorb the broader mood music and cultural christian heritage that they see around them and someone brought up as a christian. I am broadly the former, JP the latter - we might have ended up in the same place but our journey's are different - JP needed to 'convert' to be non religious, I never needed to as I was never really religious at all. There are others who are brought up christian and retain their christian beliefs as adults - a brief period rejecting those beliefs doesn't in my mind represent a 'conversion' to non religion, merely a rebellion - to come back to the religion of their childhood does represent a conversion, as best it is a reversion.

[ProfessorDavey]

And he introduces something else he'll likely leave unexplained ''Folding back into the religion of childhood''. Even Dawkin's argues there are no such things as Christian or Moslem children. Are you sneekily caricaturing religion as childish perchance?

The religion they were brought up in, the religion of their upbringing - I think that was obvious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have no idea what you mean by a convicted christian!

what an admission of your level of competence

But of course there is a difference between a cultural christian - someone not brought up to be christian but who will absorb the broader mood music and cultural christian heritage that they see around them and someone brought up as a christian. I am broadly the former, JP the latter - we might have ended up in the same place but our journey's are different - JP needed to 'convert' to be non religious, I never needed to as I was never really religious at all. There are others who are brought up christian and retain their christian beliefs as adults - a brief period rejecting those beliefs doesn't in my mind represent a 'conversion' to non religion, merely a rebellion - to come back to the religion of their childhood does represent a conversion, as best it is a reversion.

They say religion is ''caught not taught'' although that applies mostly in the case of Christianity. Being baptised as an infant does not make one a committed Christian. There is another saying that going to church no more makes you a christian than going to the Garage makes you a car.

You have chosen to interpret my upbringing as religious. I wouldn't say I possessed a religion as a child but I think you are probably appealing to your academic status here rather than actual competence.

[ProfessorDavey]

They say religion is ''caught not taught'' although that applies mostly in the case of Christianity.

Who says? Certainly not me - christianity is certainly 'taught' as unless you have been taught to be a christian when you are a child you will almost certainly never come to christianity as an adult.

Basically next to nobody ever 'catches' christianity without being 'taught it' as a child.

[ProfessorDavey]

Being baptised as an infant does not make one a committed Christian.

True - but then in most cases baptism occurs at an age when the child has no recollection or memory. But although being baptised doesn't make you a christian you will never become a committed christian (or except in very, very rare circumstances) unless you had a christian upbringing - baptised, send to Sunday school, faith school etc etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

You have chosen to interpret my upbringing as religious. I wouldn't say I possessed a religion as a child ...

Yup - you were sent to a faith school, sunday school, attended church services (although you seem to have conveniently lost your ability to recollect how often - point being if it was as rare as hen's teeth, you'd remember) - so yes your upbringing was christian, and not just culturally christian (as mine was) but pretty actively christian at a pretty impressionable age. So at a later age you didn't 'catch' christianity from no-where, you'd already been taught it, you just folded back into that upbringing as often happens.

[ProfessorDavey]

... but I think you are probably appealing to your academic status here rather than actual competence.

Well I think that may be for others to judge, but I think it is clear that during this discussion I have provided reasoned argument backed up by evidence to support my opinions as to how and why intergenerational transmission of religious belief occurs.

You argument seems to be that the world is simply full of people converting to christianity out of no-where. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. People don't just catch christianity unless they've been taught it in the first place as a child.

[Outrider]

But at the moment it still leaves a significant number of the population that do consider themselves religiously affiliated so the case for a wholly secular society with the religion expunged is about as firm as the case for Brexit.

Good thing that's not what's on offer, really. Secularism isn't about 'expunging' religion, it's about not legislating everyone with one groups religious choices.

There seem to be lots a of things that have a pernicious effect and the ''atheist bus ''type case you make is and has proved to be rather simplistic.

Of course there are - some of them have been addressed to one extent or another, sometimes even by religion. At this point in history, though, there's very little that it's adding to society, and a lot that it's holding back, restricting or actively harming.

Apatheists are less likely to call revenge on religion I would imagine.

The people, generally, that I see wanting 'revenge' on religion are people of other religions who think someone else has the wrong one. On the secular/atheist/apatheist/antitheist spectrum that you seem to be peering at no-one wants religion, they want to not have to care at all; they either just want it to keep to itself, or they want it to finish the process of slipping off into obscurity that the Norse, Greek, Roman, Aztec, Inca and so many other religions have already done.

O.

[Gordon]

The issue of to what extent people in the UK were exposed to Christianity, to a greater or lesser degree, is undoubtedly relevant: especially in relation to those who were born and grew up when organised Christianity had an influential role across UK society at large.

That is no longer the case though, and a while ago I recall a cleric being asked (in an episode of the Beyond Belief podcast, iirc) about the issues facing Christianity in the UK and he said along the lines of the biggest problem was the "unchurched": people for whom Christianity was simply an irrelevance in that they never had any engagement with it on a personal or family basis beyond what happened at school - people like me.

I wasn't even christened, which was probably unusual for a child born in the west of Scotland in 1952, and none of my 3 children or 5 grandchildren have been christened - so we are all "unchurched". I wonder to what extent what was unusual in my case 69 years ago is now more the norm: I suspect it may be, which is why the cleric mentioned above was concerned. 



       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yup - you were sent to a faith school, sunday school, attended church services (although you seem to have conveniently lost your ability to recollect how often - point being if it was as rare as hen's teeth, you'd remember) - so yes your upbringing was christian, and not just culturally christian (as mine was) but pretty actively christian at a pretty impressionable age. So at a later age you didn't 'catch' christianity from no-where, you'd already been taught it, you just folded back into that upbringing as often happens.

I take Dawkins line that there are no Christian Children etc. i.e. just because your parents were actively christian you must be. My parents were not active Christians  by any sense. So I dispute an active christian upbringing. What I was in your view is a social science construct and since the science is social science it is open to error. Also highly dubious is your ''folding back into the religion of childhood'' a process you still haven't elucidated.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You argument seems to be that the world is simply full of people converting to christianity out of no-where. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. People don't just catch christianity unless they've been taught it in the first place as a child.

No, I think that christianity has had less influence for a lot longer than any of you atheists in this country. Christianity is the encounter with Christ leading to repentence and trust. Teaching it does not make a Christian.

I am well aware of the waning of Christianity in the west. I am also aware of it's rise and the conversion of many from all sorts of faiths.

Social science is not accurate enough to satisfy us of an assured obscurity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the secular/atheist/apatheist/antitheist spectrum that you seem to be peering at no-one wants religion,

That is unscientific hyperbole especially when global statistics are taken into account. That is mere atheist wankfantasy

they want to not have to care at all

Hardly a satisfactory philosophical argument. We virtually know that the effective part of the British public, voters want to forget about Covid and move on with the man largely responsible for it's impact; they either just want it to keep to itself, or they want it to finish the process of slipping off into obscurity that the Norse, Greek, Roman, Aztec, Inca and so many other religions have already done.

All the religions you mention are polytheist and not world religions.