Less than half the population in England and Wales is Christian

[jeremyp]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792408

Also, atheism is up to 37% and Muslims are over 6%.

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792408

Also, atheism is up to 37% and Muslims are over 6%.

Just to note that's for England and Wales, not the UK.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792408

Also, atheism is up to 37% and Muslims are over 6%.

Just posted a new thread on this before I saw that you'd done the same Jeremy. Perhaps the mods can combine.

[jeremyp]

Just to note that's for England and Wales, not the UK.

Thanks. I've fixed the title.

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63792408

Also, atheism is up to 37% and Muslims are over 6%.

Actually atheism isn't up to 37% - the numbers ticking 'no religion' in the census are up to 37%. This will, presumably include atheists, but also people who are agnostic etc.

We are continuing to see the same trend in the census as in other surveys such as the Social Attitudes Survey, but the census lags other surveys that don't ask leading questions that imply that people have a religion.

[ProfessorDavey]

2021 Census results on religion have been released:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

The census shows a continuation in the decline in the numbers and proportion of people in England and Wales who describe themselves as belonging to a religion (despite the leading census question). The headlines are:

We are no longer a christian majority country (even in census christian terms) - in 2021 just 46.2% described themselves as christian, down from 59.3% in 2011 and 71.8% in 2001. This really is a huge and continuing decline which shows no sign of slowing.

The flip side being the numbers of people who are non-religious (even accounting for the leading question - in 2021 this is 37.2%, up from 25.2% in 2011 and just 14.8% in 2001.

Numerically minor religions, including islam and hinduism have increased but from a pretty low base.

[jeremyp]

2021 Census results on religion have been released:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

The census shows a continuation in the decline in the numbers and proportion of people in England and Wales who describe themselves as belonging to a religion (despite the leading census question). The headlines are:

We are no longer a christian majority country (even in census christian terms) - in 2021 just 46.2% described themselves as christian, down from 59.3% in 2011 and 71.8% in 2001. This really is a huge and continuing decline which shows no sign of slowing.

The flip side being the numbers of people who are non-religious (even accounting for the leading question - in 2021 this is 37.2%, up from 25.2% in 2011 and just 14.8% in 2001.

Numerically minor religions, including islam and hinduism have increased but from a pretty low base.

I've reported this thread to the mods to get them to combine it with yours or delete it.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've reported this thread to the mods to get them to combine it with yours or delete it.

I've added my original post to this thread, so fine to delete the other one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Careful now Brethren, lest ye stray into the realms yeah, even of argumentum ad populum.

[ProfessorDavey]

Careful now Brethren, lest ye stray into the realms yeah, even of argumentum ad populum.

Nope - Vlad, merely reporting factual information. But, of course in light of this factual information (and of course plenty of other factual information showing similar numbers and trends) it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the maintenance of special privileges for organised religion in general and christianity in particular when that no longer represents the norm within the country.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - Vlad, merely reporting factual information. But, of course in light of this factual information (and of course plenty of other factual information showing similar numbers and trends) it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the maintenance of special privileges for organised religion in general and christianity in particular when that no longer represents the norm within the country.

No, You said just46% sign up as christians, but that the lesser percentage swing was huge.
Not sure that counts as factual but biased opinion of the significance. I merely therefore warn you of a tendency to strayfrom the narrow pathway.

What troubles me is what looks like the calling for the eradication of religion from the public forum, on such slender ground i.e a five percent drop below the majority position. That is dressing an ideological goal in a slanted view of the statistics

[jeremyp]

No, You said just46% sign up as christians, but that the lesser percentage swing was huge.
Not sure that counts as factual but biased opinion of the significance. I merely therefore warn you of a tendency to strayfrom the narrow pathway.

What troubles me is what looks like the calling for the eradication of religion from the public forum, on such slender ground i.e a five percent drop below the majority position. That is dressing an ideological goal in a slanted view of the statistics

Christianity is down 13 percentage points in 10 years. How is that not a huge decline?

Nobody has called for the eradication of religion. Professor Davy suggested that religious privilege is no longer justified. Personally, I don't think it was ever justified.

The only thing I would slightly quibble about in PD's original post is the statement "this really is a huge and continuing decline which shows no sign of slowing". I know there are only three data points, but the percentage drop between 2001 and 2011 was 17% and the percentage drop between 2011 and 2021 was 22%. the rate at which people are leaving the Christian faith is accelerating. The half life of Christianity is getting shorter. It's not showing no sign of slowing, it's showing every sign of accelerating.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Christianity is down 13 percentage points in 10 years. How is that not a huge decline?

If 17% is huge how can 46% not be huger and yet it seems to be an ''only''

Nobody has called for the eradication of religion. Professor Davy suggested that religious privilege is no longer justified. Personally, I don't think it was ever justified.

I mean eradicated from the public forum.

The only thing I would slightly quibble about in PD's original post is the statement "this really is a huge and continuing decline which shows no sign of slowing". I know there are only three data points, but the percentage drop between 2001 and 2011 was 17% and the percentage drop between 2011 and 2021 was 22%. the rate at which people are leaving the Christian faith is accelerating. The half life of Christianity is getting shorter. It's not showing no sign of slowing, it's showing every sign of accelerating.

Christianity has a half life? Not sure that's a proper analogy although Davey in manifold posts and you here look as though you think Christianity has been decaying somehow since it's inception.

By what process then do you think christianity will accelerate it's loss in the next ten years? Can we start talking about cultural non religion now or is it best to wait until non religion is in the majority?

[jeremyp]

If 17% is huge how can 46% not be huger and yet it seems to be an ''only''

Nobody has said 17% is huge in absolute terms.

We were discussing the decline in the number for Christianity, to the total proportion.

I mean eradicated from the public forum.

Nobody has suggested that either. We just want the special privileges rescinded.

Christianity has a half life?

Yes, why not? If you have a population of anything - Christians, radioactive atoms, whatever, and you can calculate the probability that any individual in the population will leave the population in a given time interval, that population will have a half life.

By what process then do you think christianity will accelerate it's loss in the next ten years?

No idea, but it's loss rate has been increasing so the fact that I don't know what causes it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually atheism isn't up to 37% - the numbers ticking 'no religion' in the census are up to 37%. This will, presumably include atheists, but also people who are agnostic etc.

Copson and Dawkins always suspected that many were putting C of E who should have perhaps been putting ''No religion''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody has said 17% is huge in absolute terms.

We were discussing the decline in the number for Christianity, to the total proportion.
Nobody has suggested that either. We just want the special privileges rescinded.
Yes, why not? If you have a population of anything - Christians, radioactive atoms, whatever, and you can calculate the probability that any individual in the population will leave the population in a given time interval, that population will have a half life.
No idea, but it's loss rate has been increasing so the fact that I don't know what causes it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

But when does the secular view being the prime driver for policy and legislation become a special privilage for the secular view?

You talked about half life shortening that doesn't happen in radioactive decay so it looks like your analogy is having a short half life.

[ProfessorDavey]

If 17% is huge how can 46% not be huger ...

You are confusing the level of decline with the absolute level. It is the level of decline which is huge. And actually it isn't 17% in the past 10 years but 22% - in other words the proportionate change in christians from 2011 to 2021.

That is a big shift whichever way you look at it. And the equivalent proportional change in those reporting no religion is an increase of 47% in 10 years.

[ProfessorDavey]

But when does the secular view being the prime driver for policy and legislation become a special privilage for the secular view?

The whole point of secularism is that it is neutral with regard to religion or non-religion, no-one is privileged, nor discriminated against whether they are religious or not.

So to ascribe special privilege to secularism is the equivalent of claiming that moving from a position where men are privileged to one which embeds equality on the basis of sex is somehow providing a special privilege - it isn't as no-one is specially privileged.

[ProfessorDavey]

What troubles me is what looks like the calling for the eradication of religion from the public forum, on such slender ground i.e a five percent drop below the majority position.

Where have I said that.

Secularism is about a level playing field where people aren't privileged or discriminated against based on whether or not they are religious. That doesn't mean religion is eradicated, nor that individuals cannot promulgate their religious views or non religious views, but that being religious (or non religious) does not earn you brownie points, so to speak, in terms of public policy. That isn't the case at the moment as there are many examples where a privilege is provided to religious organisations and individuals that is not afforded to non religious organisations and people. Examples include Lords membership, tax concessions, charitable status, exemption from equalities legislation, provision of educational services. I cannot think of any example where a non religious person or organisation receives a special privilege that isn't afforded to religious organisations or individuals.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nobody has called for the eradication of religion. Professor Davy suggested that religious privilege is no longer justified. Personally, I don't think it was ever justified.

Indeed - it was never justified. However one of the arguments trotted out to justify the privileges, that we are a christian country, is clearly no longer true. It, of course, hasn't been true for many years but now the softest of soft religiosity - that of the census christian answering a leading question, has now dropped below 50%. So that, albeit desperate, justification has now gone.

My concern is that the country rather than shifting towards secularism at institutional and governmental level, shifts to something even less justifiable - the notion that to represent diversity in the country requires inviting all organised religions (rather than historically just CofE, or perhaps christian). Which ignores the rapidly increasing proportion of the population who even in census terms are non religious. Of course the proportion who have any meaningful engagement with any organised religion is probably nearer to 10%, yet it is the religious organisations that in reality represent perhaps one in ten of us who are trotted out in ceremonies, inquiries etc etc to 'represent' the country.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are confusing the level of decline with the absolute level. It is the level of decline which is huge. And actually it isn't 17% in the past 10 years but 22% - in other words the proportionate change in christians from 2011 to 2021.

That is a big shift whichever way you look at it. And the equivalent proportional change in those reporting no religion is an increase of 47% in 10 years.

Yes, but how do you explain the just in just 46% of respondents identified as christian?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The whole point of secularism is that it is neutral with regard to religion or non-religion, no-one is privileged, nor discriminated against whether they are religious or not.

So to ascribe special privilege to secularism is the equivalent of claiming that moving from a position where men are privileged to one which embeds equality on the basis of sex is somehow providing a special privilege - it isn't as no-one is specially privileged.

How does the elimination of religion from the public forum not constitute a privilage for the non religious secularist?
The male and female analogy is poor because no one is suggesting the removal of anything from the public forum. Secularism demands it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where have I said that.

Secularism is about a level playing field where people aren't privileged or discriminated against based on whether or not they are religious. That doesn't mean religion is eradicated, nor that individuals cannot promulgate their religious views or non religious views, but that being religious (or non religious) does not earn you brownie points, so to speak, in terms of public policy. That isn't the case at the moment as there are many examples where a privilege is provided to religious organisations and individuals that is not afforded to non religious organisations and people. Examples include Lords membership, tax concessions, charitable status, exemption from equalities legislation, provision of educational services. I cannot think of any example where a non religious person or organisation receives a special privilege that isn't afforded to religious organisations or individuals.

Unfortunately there is no space on a census as far as I know to record who is secularist and who wants religion eliminated from the public forum. In other words, we don't know whether those people are in a majority

British secularism is indistinguishable from atheism and humanism IMV.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, but how do you explain the just in just 46% of respondents identified as christian?

By reference to what the figure was when the same question was asked 10 years ago and 10 years before that. It is the direction of travel - a rapid decline that justifies 'just' as in 2022 just 46% of people identified as christian compared to 59% in 2011 and 71% in 2011.

[ProfessorDavey]

How does the elimination of religion from the public forum not constitute a privilage for the non religious secularist?

So equality of pay regardless of whether a person is male or female is a special privilege for women is it Vlad, or privileging feminists? Complete non-sense.

The male and female analogy is poor because no one is suggesting the removal of anything from the public forum. Secularism demands it.

No it is a very good analogy because prior the process that aims to embed equality men held special privileges within the public form in many regards. But actually few of those privileges were as overt as those still afforded to religious organisation and individuals today.

The claim of 'removal from the public forum' is simply a sop to try to justify continued privilege. No-one is stopping anyone expressing their religious belief in public - the point is that the expression of religion, nor of lack of religion should have no bearing on the development of public policy in a manner that privileges people whether or not they are religious. It is all about a level playing field Vlad.