Religions have succeeded

[Sriram]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/06/more-americans-now-say-theyre-spiritual-but-not-religious/

[ProfessorDavey]

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/06/more-americans-now-say-theyre-spiritual-but-not-religious/

But you claimed that there is "an increase in secular spirituality around the world"

But you've linked to an article about the USA only - which is just one tiny part of the world. And also the research looks at religious and non-religious people and whether they indicate that they are spiritual. It isn't about secularism at all - indeed being the USA I suspect that a high proportion will be secular, regardless of whether they are religious or not as separation of religion and state is embedded in the US constitution.

[Alan Burns]

People followed the Nazis because they had faith in them. Was that a precious gift or a curse for both them and humanity. 

It certainly was not Christian faith which drove people to follow the Nazis.  The Christian faith promotes love and compassion for fellow human beings - not self centred pride and lust for power.  There was a call to prayer from King George at critical points in the war - the evacuation at Dunkirk and the battle of Britain, which turned out to be major turning points against all the odds.  People were queueing up to enter the churches to follow this call to prayer, and we have much to thank for those Christians who answered the call.

[Outrider]

It certainly was not Christian faith which drove people to follow the Nazis.

They certainly explicitly invoked their Christian credentials in their work.

The Christian faith promotes love and compassion for fellow human beings - not self centred pride and lust for power.

That's your take on Christianity - and I prefer your take to their's - but there are many intepretations, and not all of them are as tolerant. Unfortunately, given that these are matters of faith there is no 'right' take on it, there are just varying opinions.

There was a call to prayer from King George at critical points in the war - the evacuation at Dunkirk and the battle of Britain, which turned out to be major turning points against all the odds.  People were queueing up to enter the churches to follow this call to prayer, and we have much to thank for those Christians who answered the call.

We do. We also owe much to those non-Christians who answered the call in exactly the same ways, and to the Christians who did but not because of their faith - it's almost as though there were a number of motivations for putting your life on the line for your country, your fellow men and the opposition to authoritarianist aggression.

That some Christians (thankfully) opposed Nazism neither means that Nazi Germany wasn't explicitly leveraging their Christianity for political and nationlist purposes, nor that the motivations of some of the people working within that regime weren't explicitly their take on Christianity.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

It certainly was not Christian faith which drove people to follow the Nazis.  The Christian faith promotes love and compassion for fellow human beings - not self centred pride and lust for power.

Ah, but AB you are now moving the goalposts - you talked about 'faith' not the 'christian faith'. My point was that relying on faith to drive actions can, and has led to all sorts of horrors, and still results in widespread persecution and discrimination. And that includes horrors perpetrated by those basing their actions on their christian faith over the centuries. And of course the christian faith is still discriminating and persecuting people - just see the persecution and discrimination towards gay people based on that faith.

So the christian faith may claim to promote love and compassion, but actions based on that teaching too often result in exactly the opposite. Not much love and compassion in requiring a woman made pregnant by rape victim not to have a termination. Not much love and compassion in removing babies from unmarried mothers. Not much love and compassion in preventing people from being able to use precautions that may prevent HIV infection. Not much love and compassion in declaring the consential love between two adults to be 'sinful' or even illegal just because those two people are the same sex.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm afraid there has and you are in denial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

You should try reading the articles you link to:

“According to Nature, "Critics of new atheism, as well as many new atheists themselves, contend that in philosophical terms it differs little from earlier historical forms of atheist thought.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=19250.1250

If you mean an encultured apatheism I agree in western countries.

Not sure I see much difference between atheism and apatheism (neither group believes in gods after all) but ok… 

Of course.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/07/why-people-with-no-religion-are-projected-to-decline-as-a-share-of-the-worlds-population/

Ah, so when you said “As I did when I saw the decline of New Atheism” you hadn’t “seen” that at all – what you’d actually seen (perhaps) was a projection that said it may happen and moreover a projection that still allowed for a net increase in number of “unaffiliated”:

“To be clear, the total number of religiously unaffiliated people (which includes atheists, agnostics and those who do not identify with any religion in particular) is expected to rise in absolute terms, from 1.17 billion in 2015 to 1.20 billion in 2060. But this growth is projected to occur at the same time that other religious groups – and the global population overall – are growing even faster.”

Worse yet (from your point of view) is that, even if the projection turns out to be accurate, there’s no reason to think the growth in “religious groups” won’t be among religious groups that think your choice of faith is the wrong one.   

All this reminds me somewhat of when you fell apart re philosophical materialism – you don’t bother to read the sources that you think support you and then they blow up in your face.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It certainly was not Christian faith which drove people to follow the Nazis…

Ah, so when you said “Faith, no matter how small, is the most precious gift a person can possess” what you actually meant was, “the specific faith that I happen to have” rather than "faith" as a general phenomenon right? 

Well, ok – but if you expect people to take your faith claims seriously on what basis would you deny the same expectations from adherents of any other faiths?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, so when you said “As I did when I saw the decline of New Atheism” you hadn’t “seen” that at all – what you’d actually seen (perhaps) was a projection that said it may happen and moreover a projection that still allowed for a net increase in number of “unaffiliated”:

Of course it may not happen like that, as the decline of religion may not happen in the way desired by people on this forum. Wonder if that is why HumanistUK and their ilk are pestering for icecream AKA begging to dismantle the religious infrastructure now while the going's good.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course it may not happen like that, as the decline of religion may not happen in the way desired by people on this forum. Wonder if that is why HumanistUK and their ilk are pestering for icecream AKA begging to dismantle the religious infrastructure now while the going's good.

I see your evasion, but the point here was that you told us you “saw the decline in New atheism” when there was nothing new about it, and when there was no decline for you to have seen in any case.

Apart from that though…     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I see your evasion, but the point here was that you told us you “saw the decline in New atheism” when there was nothing new about it, and when there was no decline for you to have seen in any case.

Apart from that though…   

No there is no evasion. The New Atheist entry in Wikipedia gives witness statements to a movement within Atheists.
Your objection is based merely on a dislike to being identified as something by a senior leader within New Atheism. The traits of this movement have been identified. To pretend that there is no movement and people have to answer for disagreeing with your taste in names is absurd. You are well and truly in denial Hillside.

The entry also charts the decline in the influence of this movement. You draw pleasure in the loss of faith I draw shuddering, screaming, headboard banging orgasmic ecstacy from the decline of this movement and the influence of it's members. And if it's still going you can put that in ''fundies say the darndest things.''

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No there is no evasion. The New Atheist entry in Wikipedia gives witness statements to a movement within Atheists.

And the criticism (also in the Wiki piece) remains that there was nothing especially new about “new atheism”.

Your objection is based merely on a dislike to being identified as something by a senior leader within New Atheism. The traits of this movement have been identified. To pretend that there is no movement and people have to answer for disagreeing with your taste in names is absurd. You are well and truly in denial Hillside.

No. My “objection” is that there was nothing especially new about “new” atheism, and moreover that you’d hadn’t seen its decline as you claimed. 

The entry also charts the decline in the influence of this movement. You draw pleasure in the loss of faith I draw shuddering, screaming, headboard banging orgasmic ecstacy from the decline of this movement and the influence of it's members. And if it's still going you can put that in ''fundies say the darndest things.'

Not sure there ever was much of a “movement” as such, but in any case it’s irrelevant: you made a claim that wasn’t true – that’s all. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The entry also charts the decline in the influence of this movement. You draw pleasure in the loss of faith I draw shuddering, screaming, headboard banging orgasmic ecstacy from the decline of this movement and the influence of it's members. And if it's still going you can put that in ''fundies say the darndest things.'

Oh and by the way: even if the projection turned out to be right and the faith beliefs did grow relative to non-faith, there’s no reason at all for you to assume that the faiths concerned wouldn’t given the opportunity do away with your faith just as soon as they possibly could. Try to remember that historically at least the biggest threats to religious faiths have been other religious faiths, not non-believers.

Here's an example for you:

“President Thomas Jefferson, writing to members of the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut on this day in 1802, stated that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution created a “wall of separation between church and state.”

The association had been founded in 1790 as a coalition of about 26 churches in the Connecticut Valley. Its leaders had written to Jefferson to complain that Connecticut’s official religion — Calvinist Protestants had founded the colony — infringed on their own religious liberty. “Whatever religious privileges we enjoy,” they maintained, “we enjoy as favors granted and not as inalienable rights.”

President Thomas Jefferson, writing to members of the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut on this day in 1802, stated that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution created a “wall of separation between church and state.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/01/jefferson-signs-danbury-letter-1802-1077174

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh and by the way: even if the projection turned out to be right and the faith beliefs did grow relative to non-faith, there’s no reason at all for you to assume that the faiths concerned wouldn’t given the opportunity do away with your faith just as soon as they possibly could. Try to remember that historically at least the biggest threats to religious faiths have been other religious faiths, not non-believers.

Here's an example for you:

“President Thomas Jefferson, writing to members of the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut on this day in 1802, stated that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution created a “wall of separation between church and state.”

The association had been founded in 1790 as a coalition of about 26 churches in the Connecticut Valley. Its leaders had written to Jefferson to complain that Connecticut’s official religion — Calvinist Protestants had founded the colony — infringed on their own religious liberty. “Whatever religious privileges we enjoy,” they maintained, “we enjoy as favors granted and not as inalienable rights.”

President Thomas Jefferson, writing to members of the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut on this day in 1802, stated that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution created a “wall of separation between church and state.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/01/jefferson-signs-danbury-letter-1802-1077174

My point is merely that a vocal and dogmatic antitheism is probably no different from a religion and David Wilson the atheist biologist takes that view also. Calvinists have been historically notorious in their persecution starting with Jean Chauvin himself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My point is merely that a vocal and dogmatic antitheism…

What “dogma” do you perceive here exactly?

…is probably no different from a religion…

Well yes, dogma tends to be the “go to” for religion(s) but you’ve yet to demonstrate it (or to demonstrate it to anything like the same degree) in "antitheism". 

…and David Wilson the atheist biologist takes that view also.

So you say. As you haven’t posted a citation though I have no idea whether or not that’s true.

Calvinists have been historically notorious in their persecution starting with Jean Chauvin himself.

Which was rather my point: secular societies that separate church from state also have the effect of protecting the churches from each other. Your “shuddering, screaming, headboard banging orgasmic ecstacy from the decline of this movement and the influence of it's members” could well be badly misplaced therefore.

Sort version: I’d be very careful about what I wished for if I were you.   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Ah, so when you said “Faith, no matter how small, is the most precious gift a person can possess” what you actually meant was, “the specific faith that I happen to have” rather than "faith" as a general phenomenon right? 

Apologies, I should have been more specific.  I was taking it for granted that when I used the word "faith" in this context that readers would presume I meant Christian faith.

Well, ok – but if you expect people to take your faith claims seriously on what basis would you deny the same expectations from adherents of any other faiths?

I concede that there are people of other faiths who adhere to their beliefs as much as I do to my Christian faith.  I see other faith systems as sincere man made attempts to seek truth and meaning behind their existence (In this I include those who try to seek the truth in material based explanations).  The big difference is that in my beliefs I see God making Himself known to a sceptical human race - initially through the prophets and finally by becoming one of us in the person of Jesus Christ.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Apologies, I should have been more specific.  I was taking it for granted that when I used the word "faith" in this context that readers would presume I meant Christian faith.

No apologies needed, though you don’t even mean “Christian” faith here I suspect: what you more likely mean is something like “the particular sub-set of Christianity that I happen to find most persuasive” or similar. 

I concede that there are people of other faiths who adhere to their beliefs as much as I do to my Christian faith.  I see other faith systems as sincere man made attempts to seek truth and meaning behind their existence (In this I include those who try to seek the truth in material based explanations).  The big difference is that in my beliefs I see God making Himself known to a sceptical human race - initially through the prophets and finally by becoming one of us in the person of Jesus Christ.

No doubt you do, but that wasn’t the point. The point was that, if you think “faith” should be privileged in the public square above just guessing ("Faith, no matter how small, is the most precious gift a person can possess"), then you cannot qualify that with “but only when the faith concerns beliefs I happen to find convincing”. Either faith as a rationale is epistemically valid or it isn’t; what the faith happens to be about is a subsidiary issue.   

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm afraid there has and you are in denial https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

But your article says:

"The term New Atheism was coined by the American journalist Gary Wolf in 2006 to describe the positions of some atheist academics, writers, scientists, and philosophers of the 21st century."

And when you follow the link to the guy who came up with the term do you find this person to be a key proponent of New Atheism, at the forefront of fighting the good fight against religions under the New Atheism banner. Err, nope, you get this (note my emphasis):

"He coined the pejorative New Atheism in 2006 to describe the positions promoted by some atheists of the 21st century ..."

He is using the term as a snide insult.

So if I wrote an article in which I coin the term Crackpot Christianity (with CAPITALISATION) as a pejorative term would that mean than a new branch of christianity had been created under the name Crackpot Christianity. Nope as the actual christians would simply turn around and say 'nope - not invented here - I don't recognise that term'. And that seems to be the same with New Atheism - a term that only ever seems to be used by those attacking vocal atheists - is it ever actually used by atheists themselves. I, personally, can state categorically that I've never described myself as a new atheist or a New Atheist nor have I ever considered myself an advocate or member of a movement called New Atheism. By contrast I was a strong supporter of New Labour and was proud to have campaigned under the New Labour banner in 1997.

Bottom line - be very sceptical about terms that tend not to be used by the people the term apparently applies to, but only by those who oppose the people to whom the term apparently applies.

[Alan Burns]

No doubt you do, but that wasn’t the point. The point was that, if you think “faith” should be privileged in the public square above just guessing ("Faith, no matter how small, is the most precious gift a person can possess"), then you cannot qualify that with “but only when the faith concerns beliefs I happen to find convincing”. Either faith as a rationale is epistemically valid or it isn’t; what the faith happens to be about is a subsidiary issue.

I can assure you that there is no guesswork involved in my Christian faith, which has been confirmed in so many ways.  But I have no doubt that you will use your God given freedom to think up reasons to dismiss, ignore or ridicule any witness I or other fellow believers give to confirm their beliefs.

And I stand by the truth in my conviction that Christian faith, no matter how small, is the most precious gift a person can possess.  I am sorry that from the outside you will be unable to see the truth in this statement, so I will pray for your miraculous conversion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I can assure you that there is no guesswork involved in my Christian faith, which has been confirmed in so many ways.

But you can’t assure me of that at all Alan. All you can do is to assure me that you believe that to be the case, but nothing more. If you want to provide assurances that are objectively verifiable though you’ll have to find some way of doing it that isn’t just an expression of personal faith.   

But I have no doubt that you will use your God given freedom to think up reasons to dismiss, ignore or ridicule any witness I or other fellow believers give to confirm their beliefs.

The “God given” is just your circular reasoning again, and in any case I’m not doing that – I’m just asking you build the bridge from “that’s my faith” to “therefore it’s objectively true”.

Is that so unreasonable? 

And I stand by the truth in my conviction that Christian faith, no matter how small, is the most precious gift a person can possess.

I haven’t doubted that that is your true conviction. I’m just asking you how you’d justify it to others if you expect them to take it seriously too.

I am sorry that from the outside you will be unable to see the truth in this statement, so I will pray for your miraculous conversion.

It’s not that I am “unable to see the truth” of it Alan, it’s that you are unable to give me any reason to think that it is true.

Why do you suppose this is so difficult for you to do? 

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

And I stand by the truth in my conviction that Christian faith, no matter how small, is the most precious gift a person can possess.  I am sorry that from the outside you will be unable to see the truth in this statement, so I will pray for your miraculous conversion.

How will god achieve this miraculous conversion?

I.e if your prayer is answered will BHS be converted?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Étienne d'Angleterre

How will god achieve this miraculous conversion?

I.e if your prayer is answered will BHS be converted?

The irony here is that it wouldn’t take a miraculous conversion in any case – just an argument (rather than unqualified assertion) that isn’t trivially easy to falsify. Maybe that’s what AB should actually pray for – an argument he could post here that actually holds water?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But your article says:

"The term New Atheism was coined by the American journalist Gary Wolf in 2006 to describe the positions of some atheist academics, writers, scientists, and philosophers of the 21st century."

And when you follow the link to the guy who came up with the term do you find this person to be a key proponent of New Atheism, at the forefront of fighting the good fight against religions under the New Atheism banner. Err, nope, you get this (note my emphasis):

"He coined the pejorative New Atheism in 2006 to describe the positions promoted by some atheists of the 21st century ..."

He is using the term as a snide insult.

So if I wrote an article in which I coin the term Crackpot Christianity (with CAPITALISATION) as a pejorative term would that mean than a new branch of christianity had been created under the name Crackpot Christianity. Nope as the actual christians would simply turn around and say 'nope - not invented here - I don't recognise that term'. And that seems to be the same with New Atheism - a term that only ever seems to be used by those attacking vocal atheists - is it ever actually used by atheists themselves. I, personally, can state categorically that I've never described myself as a new atheist or a New Atheist nor have I ever considered myself an advocate or member of a movement called New Atheism. By contrast I was a strong supporter of New Labour and was proud to have campaigned under the New Labour banner in 1997.

Bottom line - be very sceptical about terms that tend not to be used by the people the term apparently applies to, but only by those who oppose the people to whom the term apparently applies.

A rose by any other name would sure smell as sweet, Professor D, so New Atheism by any other name would smell as strange.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Étienne d'Angleterre

The irony here is that it wouldn’t take a miraculous conversion in any case – just an argument (rather than unqualified assertion) that isn’t trivially easy to falsify.

You mean like composite necessary beings or circular heirarchies ha ha.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You mean like composite necessary beings or circular heirarchies ha ha.

Nope, no idea. You clearly think you have a point of some sort here but there's no guessing what it is. Possibly a touch of hysteria now the philosophical materialism mistake in which you were so heavily invested has been detonated? Who can possibly say...?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope, no idea. You clearly think you have a point of some sort here but there's no guessing what it is. Possibly a touch of hysteria now the philosophical materialism mistake in which you were so heavily invested has been detonated? Who can possibly say...?   

So Hilly, what would you count as your greatest achievement? Refuting the principle of sufficient reason by use of the principle of sufficient reason or the refutation of moral realism by eliminating morality?