A Christian revival

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Certainly in the UK it isn't just hyperbole, but non-sense. Hyperbole would suggest that there is an increase in attendance, but not to the extend that would justify the term revival.

But the actual evidence is the opposite - the long term trend of declining attendance in the CofE (and other major denominations in the UK) continues. How can you talk of revival when fewer people (not more people) are participating.

What constitutes, for you, revival and how have you been informed by religious definitions of revival?

[Maeght]

I think you think then that the term revival is hyperbole.
So, there either is revival or not. Brierley's interesting point is that the offensive by new atheism has stalled and the debate has moderated between atheists and Christians. Added to this are the reports that the New Atheists have lost a 'Horsewoman to christianity.

Of course Brierley and his new coterie of reasonably tame atheists don't post on that museum of New Atheism aka the Religion ethics forum. An atheist "hang" where a militant atheist can be themselves.

Ayan Ali's conversion is somewhat bizarre from what I have read (which is admittedly limited). She said things such as "atheism can't equip us for civilisational war." and talked about how Judeo-Christian traditions were the best way for Western society to survive but hasn't actually said that Christianity is true or that God exists. I wouldn't see that as a conversion to Christianity. Have you seen anything that shows she does believe Christianity is true though?

[Nearly Sane]

I think you think then that the term revival is hyperbole.
So, there either is revival or not. Brierley's interesting point is that the offensive by new atheism has stalled and the debate has moderated between atheists and Christians. Added to this are the reports that the New Atheists have lost a 'Horsewoman to christianity.

Of course Brierley and his new coterie of reasonably tame atheists don't post on that museum of New Atheism aka the Religion ethics forum. An atheist "hang" where a militant atheist can be themselves.

Inaccurate rather than hyperbole. A revival is surely an increase in overall numbers?  There is nothing in the article about that in the UK- so it's not that it's an exaggeration, it's just not evidenced.

I take it you have no evidence that there was a claim from the 'New Atheists or the 4 Horsemen' that 'they had finished off Christianity'?


I'd hope most people could be themselves on this board within the limits of the board rules. Not really sure what amounts to a 'militant atheist'. Are they a breakaway from the 'New Atheists'?

[Nearly Sane]

What constitutes, for you, revival and how have you been informed by religious definitions of revival?

Is the definition 'Russell Brand likey our booky wooky'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ayan Ali's conversion is somewhat bizarre from what I have read (which is admittedly limited). She said things such as "atheism can't equip us for civilisational war." and talked about how Judeo-Christian traditions were the best way for Western society to survive but hasn't actually said that Christianity is true or that God exists. I wouldn't see that as a conversion to Christianity. Have you seen anything that shows she does believe Christianity is true though?

Straight of the bat, this post seems to clutch at the straws that this lady might only be admitting a cultural christianity. That of course might be wishful thinking on your part.
My concern of course is that mere intellectual or cultural  adoption is not the same as receiving Christ into your life. So my concern would be for her rather than the numbers. Time will tell.

[Maeght]

Straight of the bat, this post seems to clutch at the straws that this lady might only be admitting a cultural christianity. That of course might be wishful thinking on your part.
My concern of course is that mere intellectual or cultural  adoption is not the same as receiving Christ into your life. So my concern would be for her rather than the numbers. Time will tell.

Clutching at straws would suggest I care whether it is a genuine conversion or not, and I don't. It was an observation prompted by your suggestion she had been 'lost to Christianity' - something I could just as well claim to be you clutching at straws if in fact she is talking about cultural Christianity and not actual belief. I take it you don't have anything to suggest she now believes in Christianity rather than just thinking cultural Christianity is important to maintain Western society. Lost to Christianity suggests becoming a believer and I see no evidence for that, so two things in recent posts which you can't actually support.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Clutching at straws would suggest I care whether it is a genuine conversion or not, and I don't. It was an observation prompted by your suggestion she had been 'lost to Christianity' - something I could just as well claim to be you clutching at straws if in fact she is talking about cultural Christianity and not actual belief. I take it you don't have anything to suggest she now believes in Christianity rather than just thinking cultural Christianity is important to maintain Western society. Lost to Christianity suggests becoming a believer and I see no evidence for that, so two things in recent posts which you can't actually support.

One of my sources on this ladies conversion is Wikipedia which says she converted to Christianity in 2023.

Explaining the conversions of top of the line atheists away has happened before and with jealous rigour. Something similar was done with Anthony Flew's change of mind on theism.

I don't know if there is revival in the statistical sense which can only be restricted to profession and church attendance.

 To me Brierley states that the New Atheist onslaught has subsided. That the four Horsemen and their associates have few heirs, that there is no apostolic succession.

What I find interesting is that this forum is emptier of atheist personnel but those remaining are IMV angrier.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So, there either is revival or not.

So the writer makes the basic error in reasoning of thinking the plural of anecdote is evidence. It gets worse…

“… a secular liberal westerner who had lost any vestige of faith by his teenage years, came to realise he was still essentially Christian in terms of his beliefs about human rights, equality and freedom.”

What beliefs would they be do you think – homophobia, misogyny, condemnation of believers in different gods? Brierley seems to be cherry-picking the beliefs here, and then plagiarising them as being Christian ones. 

"I also believe Holland’s journey reflects a wider turning of the secular tide in the West, a phenomenon I document in my book The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God."

I haven’t read the book, but there’s no evidence in the article of a “wider turning of the secular tide in the West”. Indeed, further down he says himself “The statistics show an overall picture of continued decline of religiosity. Churchgoing in some denominations has been in free fall for decades.” What need of statistics though when he knows a bloke who etc… eh? 

“The New Atheists of the early 2000s – led by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett – predicted a utopia founded upon science and reason once we had abandoned religion. But their bestselling books proved to be full of empty promises. All that our post-Christian society has delivered so far is confusion, a mental health crisis in the young and the culture wars. It’s not surprising then that a movement of New Theists has sprung up.”

Can you see anything in that paragraph that’s actually true? I can’t.

“But Christianity is not just a useful lifeboat for stranded intellectuals. If it isn’t literally true, it isn’t valuable. Whether Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead matters. It mattered to St Paul. ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.’ And it should matter to us.”

No – it could still be “valuable” even if there not a word of truth in it provided people believe it’s true. Whether even then it actually is valuable (other then to its believers) is another matter though. 

“If people hadn’t actually believed in the Christian promise of redemption and if they hadn’t been able to hope in the face of death, they wouldn’t have had the courage to change the world in Jesus’s name.”

He’s confusing here believing something to be true with it actually being true.

“However, they say God moves in mysterious ways. As a believing Christian, I see signs that he is moving in the minds and hearts of secular intellectuals.”

“As a believing Christian” is irrelevant. As a rational thinker though either the data supports the claim or it doesn’t. It doesn’t.

"Many of them are recognising that secular humanism has failed and, against all their expectations, seem to be on the verge of embracing faith instead."

How “many”, and would value would an argumentum ad populum be in any case even if he could find lots of them?

“Some have actually become Christians. The author and poet Paul Kingsnorth surprised his readership when he announced his conversion in 2021. Russell Brand is now calling himself a Christian and says he plans to get baptised. Ayaan Hirsi Ali says she has embraced Christianity after realising she was ‘spiritually bankrupt’. The tech pioneer Jordan Hall recently went public about his conversion to Christianity. Significantly, both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Jordan Hall have mentioned the influence of Tom Holland’s thesis that Christianity is the foundation on which the ethics of the West sits.”

Again, the plural of anecdote isn’t evidence.

“The historian was tempted to put it down to dehydration and nausea, but couldn’t dismiss it so easily. ‘It was a kind of sweet sense of intoxication,’ Holland told me. ‘Perhaps everything was weird and strange. And the moment you accept that there are angels, then suddenly the world just seems richer and more interesting.”

Angels eh? Well…

“Holland also spoke candidly for the first time about a cancer diagnosis he received in December 2021, which would have necessitated the removal of part of his digestive system. The news came at a time when hospitals were being overwhelmed by a Covid spike, and a clear picture of the diagnosis was hard to come by. Reeling from the news, Holland attended midnight mass at St Bartholomew the Great, where he prayed a desperate prayer.

Within a couple of weeks, it appeared his prayer had been answered. A set of unusual circumstances led to the diagnosis being reversed. No surgery was needed after all.”

Oh FFS. Seriously? Does the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy ring any bells here?

“Holland freely admits that neither of these examples are likely to sway a hard-headed sceptic.”

Or even just a rational thinker…

“The moment you accept that there are angels, then suddenly the world seems richer and more interesting”

Leprechauns too. So?

“Where this movement is headed remains to be seen.”

What “movement”?

“The statistics show an overall picture of continued decline of religiosity. Churchgoing in some denominations has been in free fall for decades.”

Er, yes.

Apart from all that though…

[Nearly Sane]

For anyone interested here's Ali Ayaan Hirsi's article on her conversion


https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/

[jeremyp]

This is hilarious. Apparently, atheist Tom Holland went into a church and prayed and then his diagnosis of cancer was found to be incorrect. Now he's a Christian allegedly*.

I'm intrigued. If it's that easy for God to recruit new believers, why doesn't he do it for every non believer who prays for him? Why doesn't he do it for the believers who get cancer? Or is it a oner time offer for new subscribers only?

We know the reason why: your god doesn't exist. If there's any kind of god, he/she/it doesn't care about us.

*listening to him every week on The Rest is History, I think I'd be a little bit sceptical of that claim. Justin Brierly perpetrates many other lies in the article. Why not misrepresent Holland's beliefs too.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

This is hilarious. Apparently, atheist Tom Holland went into a church and prayed and then his diagnosis of cancer was found to be incorrect. Now he's a Christian allegedly*.

I'm intrigued. If it's that easy for God to recruit new believers, why doesn't he do it for every non believer who prays for him? Why doesn't he do it for the believers who get cancer? Or is it a oner time offer for new subscribers only?

We know the reason why: your god doesn't exist. If there's any kind of god, he/she/it doesn't care about us.

*listening to him every week on The Rest is History, I think I'd be a little bit sceptical of that claim. Justin Brierly perpetrates many other lies in the article. Why not misrepresent Holland's beliefs too.

So we have someone who was diagnosed “…when hospitals were being overwhelmed by a Covid spike, and a clear picture of the diagnosis was hard to come by.”

Who then “prayed a desperate prayer” – my word, how god botherers love a bit of hyperbole to juice up the story eh?

Following which, “within a couple of weeks, it appeared his prayer had been answered. A set of unusual circumstances led to the diagnosis being reversed. No surgery was needed after all.”

“Appeared" to whom – the credulous and non-rational presumably? 

“Holland freely admits that neither of these examples are likely to sway a hard-headed sceptic.”

Funny that, especially when the story claims a god who cures someone who’s prepared to genuflect but not apparently this poor little girl: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68668234

What a scumbag such a god would be. 

[SteveH]

Professor. Can I put this claim I read about recently to you for comment " Inherited religion is falling, chosen religion is rising".

Evidence?

[Maeght]

One of my sources on this ladies conversion is Wikipedia which says she converted to Christianity in 2023.

Explaining the conversions of top of the line atheists away has happened before and with jealous rigour. Something similar was done with Anthony Flew's change of mind on theism.

I don't know if there is revival in the statistical sense which can only be restricted to profession and church attendance.

 To me Brierley states that the New Atheist onslaught has subsided. That the four Horsemen and their associates have few heirs, that there is no apostolic succession.

What I find interesting is that this forum is emptier of atheist personnel but those remaining are IMV angrier.

The Wikipedia article includes the fact that people criticised what she said as she didn't mention belief in Christianity but talked about it as I described earlier.

[ProfessorDavey]

Professor. Can I put this claim I read about recently to you for comment " Inherited religion is falling, chosen religion is rising".

Interesting question.

Well first we'd need some definitions - so perhaps:

'inherited religion' - someone who is an adherent of a religion as an adult that is the same as the religious tradition they were brought up in.
'chosen religion' - someone who has chosen to follow a religion as an adult without there being a link to that religion through upbringing.

I'd also suggest we shouldn't consider someone who shuffles between different christian denominations, e.g. brought up catholic but becomes CofE as an adult as not being 'inherited religion. So we'd really be considering someone brought up e.g. muslim or non religious who becomes christian as an adult.

For completeness we should also add in 'inherited non-religion' (someone brought up non religious who retains that non-religion as an adult) and 'chosen non religion' (someone brought up in a religious household who chooses to become non religious as a adult.

So having got that out of the way we can look at the evidence.

Well the first thing to note is that people who are 'chosen religion' are a vanishingly small proportion of the christian population (and I think also of other religions). So typically less than 2% of current christians were brought up either in another religion or in a non religious household. This is important, as while it might be the case that 'chosen religion' is growing, given that it represents such a small proportion it will have little effect on overall adherent numbers. So if 'inherited religion' is declining 'chosen religion' would need to grow at probably 50 times the rate to prevent overall adherent numbers declining.

But actually asking about whether one or other is growing or shrinking doesn't seem particularly relevant - the key issue is net change - so the numbers gained by conversion (from another religion or from non religion) vs those lost by conversion (to another religion or from non religion). Now the conversions from one religion to another and vice versa are both small and seem largely balanced - each religion gains as many as it loses. But the key here is conversion to and from religion (e.g. christianity) and non religion. Here the numbers are neither small nor balanced.

Typically between one third and one half of those brought up christian convert to non religion as adults - under my definition 'chosen non religion'. And for every non religious person who converts to christianity ('chosen religion') about 10 to 12 convert in the opposite direction ('chosen non religion').

You can see a lot of this evidence in the following short report

https://www.stmarys.ac.uk/research/centres/benedict-xvi/docs/2018-feb-contemporary-catholicism-report-may16.pdf

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting question.

Well first we'd need some definitions - so perhaps:

'inherited religion' - someone who is an adherent of a religion as an adult that is the same as the religious tradition they were brought up in.
'chosen religion' - someone who has chosen to follow a religion as an adult without there being a link to that religion through upbringing.

Is this an agreed definition or are these just yours? If so, who agreed them?
 Of course the idea here is that an adult choosing to commit to their parents perhaps nominal faith should be classed as the same nominal or cultural faith. That I would move is itself a sweeping generalisation which devotees to a religion who move from the nominal to the committed in adulthood might not agree with. A better methodology would be by profession I.e. Those who profess an inherited faith e.g.I am a Christiann because my family and parents were Christian as opposed to those who profess being born again. That you are prepared to discard any difference because you can't grasp the idea is argument from incredulity on your part.

I'd also suggest we shouldn't consider someone who shuffles between different christian denominations, e.g. brought up catholic but becomes CofE as an adult as not being 'inherited religion. So we'd really be considering someone brought up e.g. muslim or non religious who becomes christian as an adult.

For completeness we should also add in 'inherited non-religion' (someone brought up non religious who retains that non-religion as an adult) and 'chosen non religion' (someone brought up in a religious household who chooses to become non religious as a adult.

So having got that out of the way we can look at the evidence.

Well the first thing to note is that people who are 'chosen religion' are a vanishingly small proportion of the christian population (and I think also of other religions). So typically less than 2% of current christians were brought up either in another religion or in a non religious household. This is important, as while it might be the case that 'chosen religion' is growing, given that it represents such a small proportion it will have little effect on overall adherent numbers. So if 'inherited religion' is declining 'chosen religion' would need to grow at probably 50 times the rate to prevent overall adherent numbers declining.

But actually asking about whether one or other is growing or shrinking doesn't seem particularly relevant - the key issue is net change - so the numbers gained by conversion (from another religion or from non religion) vs those lost by conversion (to another religion or from non religion). Now the conversions from one religion to another and vice versa are both small and seem largely balanced - each religion gains as many as it loses. But the key here is conversion to and from religion (e.g. christianity) and non religion. Here the numbers are neither small nor balanced.

Typically between one third and one half of those brought up christian convert to non religion as adults - under my definition 'chosen non religion'. And for every non religious person who converts to christianity ('chosen religion') about 10 to 12 convert in the opposite direction ('chosen non religion').

You can see a lot of this evidence in the following short report

https://www.stmarys.ac.uk/research/centres/benedict-xvi/docs/2018-feb-contemporary-catholicism-report-may16.pdf

It looks like there is a lot in the methodology that involves categorical shoehorned perhaps for the sake of the methodology. I think the Humanists, in their campaign to get people to make a more realistic entry about their religion on the census had more useful definitions of chosen religion than you.

At the end of the day any survey suffers from the constraints of social science.

[ProfessorDavey]

Is this an agreed definition or are these just yours? If so, who agreed them?

Nope, mine isn't an agreed definition, but then again nor is yours. But the point remains that to have a meaningful discussion about the distinction between 'inherited religion' and 'chosen religion' we need to agree on what these definitions mean.

Of course the idea here is that an adult choosing to commit to their parents perhaps nominal faith should be classed as the same nominal or cultural faith. That I would move is itself a sweeping generalisation which devotees to a religion who move from the nominal to the committed in adulthood might not agree with. A better methodology would be by profession I.e. Those who profess an inherited faith e.g.I am a Christiann because my family and parents were Christian as opposed to those who profess being born again. That you are prepared to discard any difference because you can't grasp the idea is argument from incredulity on your part.

But 98% of adult christians in the UK, whether 'born again' or not, were brought up in a Christian household. So the impact of upbringing is massive - without that 'inheritance' the likelihood of someone being christian as an adult is vanishingly small.

There is also the issue that 'professed' or 'born again' is highly subjective and also it seems to be of importance only in some branches of christianity - for example in my 30 years of interaction with practicing catholics (my wife and her family) I have never once heard the term as one of importance in adulthood. This seems to be something important to evangelicals.

Finally, and most importantly - your definition seems to lump someone brought up christian who makes an active 'profession' as an adult in the same category as someone brought up muslim with no prior engagement to christianity who converts. That seems totally non-sense as the convert from another religion cannot be considered to be the same as a person who folds into, or folds back into, the religion of their upbringing.

It looks like there is a lot in the methodology that involves categorical shoehorned perhaps for the sake of the methodology. I think the Humanists, in their campaign to get people to make a more realistic entry about their religion on the census had more useful definitions of chosen religion than you.

[ProfessorDavey]

It looks like there is a lot in the methodology that involves categorical shoehorned perhaps for the sake of the methodology. I think the Humanists, in their campaign to get people to make a more realistic entry about their religion on the census had more useful definitions of chosen religion than you.

At the end of the day any survey suffers from the constraints of social science.

Oh dear - you don't like the evidence so you just dismiss it.

Interesting you need to bring up humanists - why on earth is that relevant to a highly credible piece of work conducted by a Catholic organisation. If there was any bias going on here, you'd anticipate it being pro-christian given that the work was conducted by a christian organisation. But the data themselves are clearly objective, while there is understandably a focus on catholicism in the overall piece, but it still includes enough information to address your earlier question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear - you don't like the evidence so you just dismiss it.

Interesting you need to bring up humanists - why on earth is that relevant to a highly credible piece of work conducted by a Catholic organisation. If there was any bias going on here, you'd anticipate it being pro-christian given that the work was conducted by a christian organisation. But the data themselves are clearly objective, while there is understandably a focus on catholicism in the overall piece, but it still includes enough information to address your earlier question.

I have seen the evidence before and have not made any statement of dismissal as far as I can remember.

My beef is the same as Humanist UK, that official surveying does not get to the nub of the question of peoples chosen religion but merely they're affiliation. As for my views on your methodology regarding people's chosen belief it is well known I think that's crap for reasons I've frequently given not least your rewriting of my personal biography.

[ProfessorDavey]

My beef is the same as Humanist UK, that official surveying does not get to the nub of the question of peoples chosen religion but merely they're affiliation. As for my views on your methodology regarding people's chosen belief it is well known I think that's crap for reasons I've frequently given not least your rewriting of my personal biography.

The beef from various groups is about the census, specifically about the leading wording of the question used: 'What is your religion?' - as far as I'm aware no such criticism has been placed on other surveys (e.g. the British Social Attitudes survey) which use a more neutral form of wording that considers religion and non religion as equivalent options.

This report works from the raw data from the British Social Attitudes survey so I doubt Humanist UK would have any issue with potential bias within the raw data set.

Interesting that you consider your opinion on the hugely well respected social attitudes data (going back to the early 80s) to trump those of the community of social scientists who consider this one of the most respected and rich data sets pretty well anywhere in the world.

Almost as if you don't like the findings so you dismiss the methodology - hmmm, somewhat lacking in objectivity I feel.

[ProfessorDavey]

As for my views on your methodology regarding people's chosen belief it is well known I think that's crap for reasons I've frequently given not least your rewriting of my personal biography.

Do you accept that a person brought up in a christian household with a christian upbringing who ends up christian as an adult (even if 'born again') is not equivalent to someone brought up in a muslim household with a muslim upbringing who converts to christianity as an adult cannot be considered to be the same?

Your categorisation seems to dump them in the same category.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you accept that a person brought up in a christian household with a christian upbringing who ends up christian as an adult (even if 'born again') is not equivalent to someone brought up in a muslim household with a muslim upbringing who converts to christianity as an adult cannot be considered to be the same?

Your categorisation seems to dump them in the same category.

I think you and I have different definitions of "christian household" professor and the ability to categorise different religions.
For example you appear quite happy to ignore the difference between a nominal christian and a born again christian.

We differ also in our views on the ability and effectiveness of social science although given their methodology I'm not arguing that their conclusions are a bad fit. That says nothing about methodology.

As you know Professor I rather view your efforts to promote the statistics dangerously close to an argumentum ad populum.

I would also not seek to interpret a 46% return of "christianity" as "Well that just about wraps it up for christianity".

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you and I have different definitions of "christian household" professor and the ability to categorise different religions.
For example you appear quite happy to ignore the difference between a nominal christian and a born again christian.

We differ also in our views on the ability and effectiveness of social science although given their methodology I'm not arguing that their conclusions are a bad fit. That says nothing about methodology.

As you know Professor I rather view your efforts to promote the statistics dangerously close to an argumentum ad populum.

I would also not seek to interpret a 46% return of "christianity" as "Well that just about wraps it up for christianity".

Your complete failure to answer my question is duly noted.

I ask again:

Do you accept that a person brought up in a christian household with a christian upbringing who ends up christian as an adult (even if 'born again') is not equivalent to someone brought up in a muslim household with a muslim upbringing who converts to christianity as an adult cannot be considered to be the same?

[Alan Burns]

Do you accept that a person brought up in a christian household with a christian upbringing who ends up christian as an adult (even if 'born again') is not equivalent to someone brought up in a muslim household with a muslim upbringing who converts to christianity as an adult cannot be considered to be the same?

There are many different paths people have undergone to discovering the truth of God's love for us in the person of Jesus Christ.
It is the end result which matters - not the route they have taken.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What Alan says.

[Nearly Sane]

What Alan says.

So when you quoted  " Inherited religion is falling, chosen religion is rising" , you thought it was a completely pointless thing to quote.