"Gen Z far less likely to be atheists than parents and grandparents"

[Nearly Sane]

As a companion piece to the one on them being keen on dictators.


https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/gen-z-far-less-likely-to-be-atheists-than-parents-and-grandparents-new-study-reveals/ar-AA1xWlDq

[Steve H]

Sounds like an aspect of the "liberal sandwich" phenomenon: people of my age - born late 40s and 50s - tend to be more left-wing and liberal than either their parents or their children.

[Nearly Sane]

Sounds like an aspect of the "liberal sandwich" phenomenon: people of my age - born late 40s and 50s - tend to be more left-wing and liberal than either their parents or their children.

I think left wing here doesn't really work clearly any more.

[jeremyp]

I think left wing here doesn't really work clearly any more.

I have always thought this idea that one's politics can be described by a point on a line is ridiculous.

[Sriram]

They are more spiritual (in a secular sense) than religious I suppose. They are also less influenced by the materialism of the mid 20th century and people like Dawkins et al.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One wonders then why the forum shouldn't start a spirituality board or section. Goodness knows we have some that people rarely contribute to.

[Sriram]

One wonders then why the forum shouldn't start a spirituality board or section. Goodness knows we have some that people rarely contribute to.

We have a philosophy section for a start....

[ProfessorDavey]

They are more spiritual (in a secular sense) than religious I suppose. They are also less influenced by the materialism of the mid 20th century and people like Dawkins et al.

The report is here:

https://thedevilsgospels.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/The-Devils-Gospels-Report_final.pdf

Have to say it does read in a very partisan and non-neutral manner. And if very confusing, unlike some of the Pew reports which cover similar territory. As an example the report suggests that 70% of the sample were 'spiritual' (p6), yet none of the groups divided by age had 'spiritual' greater than 64% (p7). So all very confusing. I also like to see the actual questions asked, which Pew tends to provide, but no indication here.

However, on 'spiritual' - there is a breakdown of how people perceive their spiritualness in terms of activity. And these are ridiculously broad - so no1 is 'enjoying nature', and also included are:

'connecting with other people'
'enjoying music or art'
'exercise'
and even:
'supporting a sports team of fandom'

Seems this is more about general leisure activity or wellbeing, rather than anything most of us might consider to be 'spiritual'. Without seeing the questions it is difficult to be able to draw conclusions - so were these categories provided to responders for them to indicate which they considered important, or is this self-generated.

[Steve H]

I have always thought this idea that one's politics can be described by a point on a line is ridiculous.

Yes, it is = which is why some people use a two-dimensional graph, the vertical axis being libertarian- to - authoritarian, the horizontal one left- to- right on economic issues.
https://www.cursor.org/politics/2019/05/10/political-spectrum-explained.html

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We have a philosophy section for a start....

While Eastern philosophy might be a fit for spirituality, we have to accept Western philosophy might not be such a fit.

[ProfessorDavey]

While Eastern philosophy might be a fit for spirituality, we have to accept Western philosophy might not be such a fit.

Well based on this survey it should fit comfortably in 'Sports, hobbies and interests' or 'Literature, music, arts and entertainment'.

See above my comment on how ridiculously broad the claimed 'spiritual' activities are within this survey.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well based on this survey it should fit comfortably in 'Sports, hobbies and interests' or 'Literature, music, arts and entertainment'.

Ecstacy can, I think, be experienced in an interest. Ecstacy is that experience of forgetting about or losing that sense of self like an absorption. Not at all like consciously forming or coming to an opinion

[SqueakyVoice]

Well based on this survey it should fit comfortably in 'Sports, hobbies and interests' or 'Literature, music, arts and entertainment'.

See above my comment on how ridiculously broad the claimed 'spiritual' activities are within this survey.

Other polls are available...

According to a recent poll carried out by YouGov for Humanists UK, which is backing Harman’s amendment, 22% of Britons want to keep bishops in the Lords and 52% want them removed.

From https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/26/right-of-bishops-sit-lords-should-scrapped-harriet-harman Under  NO CIRCUMSTANCES  should ANYONE IMAGINE Harriet  Harman or any other secularists, bashing the bishop(s).

[ProfessorDavey]

Ecstacy can, I think, be experienced in an interest. Ecstacy is that experience of forgetting about or losing that sense of self like an absorption. Not at all like consciously forming or coming to an opinion

Which brings us right back to the vagueness of definitions of spirituality.

Sure ecstasy, euphoria and other things associated with a big endorphin rush etc are powerful experiences. But is the endorphin hit someone gets from exercise, or the buzz you get from harmony singing in a group or being in a crowd of tens of thousands supporting a football team or watching a gig really spirituality?!? Only if you define it in a way that is so broad as to become meaningless.

Where I see dishonesty and disingenuousness is where people define spirituality is such a broad manner that it includes all these human experiences and then make a hand break turn to claim that the people who have these experiences are really just religious, but in denial.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which brings us right back to the vagueness of definitions of spirituality.

I should imagine it seems vague to you because you don't trouble yourself much over it. It seems quite straightforward to me,.
There are people of a reductionist, eliminative materialist, empiricist bent with a limited range of things which have meaning then there are those who think there's a bit more and/ or that it's a bit more complicated with ideas and abstracts and experiences and feelings, and greatness and the numinous and that because it isn't described adequately by those isms, it's referred to as the spiritual a term which has different meanings in different contexts.

[jeremyp]

Yes, it is = which is why some people use a two-dimensional graph, the vertical axis being libertarian- to - authoritarian, the horizontal one left- to- right on economic issues.
https://www.cursor.org/politics/2019/05/10/political-spectrum-explained.html

Even a point on a plane is too simplistic to describe somebody's political views which are multidimensional.

[Nearly Sane]

Even a point on a plane is too simplistic to describe somebody's political views which are multidimensional.

That something is a simplification doesn't necessarily  mean that is ridiculous or useless.

[Nearly Sane]

Given the mention of spirituality, I thought I would bring up this one that we prepared earlier.

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11595.0

[ProfessorDavey]

I should imagine it seems vague to you because you don't trouble yourself much over it. It seems quite straightforward to me,.
There are people of a reductionist, eliminative materialist, empiricist bent with a limited range of things which have meaning then there are those who think there's a bit more and/ or that it's a bit more complicated with ideas and abstracts and experiences and feelings, and greatness and the numinous and that because it isn't described adequately by those isms, it's referred to as the spiritual a term which has different meanings in different contexts.

What an incredibly patronising post Vlad.

The notion of spirituality doesn't just appear vague because I don't recognise the things you mention - nope it appear vague because its definition is a wide or as narrow as people choose it to be (typically for their own purposes).

I assure you that I am as capable of feeling as inspired by nature, as emotional by listening to or singing music, as moved by love etc etc as the next person. The difference isn't how powerfully we feel these emotions, but whether we badge them with the (poorly defined) term 'spiritual'. You may do, I don't - but that doesn't make me 'shallow' or unfeeling or uninterested, merely not prepared to slap an ill-defined 'sticker' on things that rather transcend such pigeon-holing. Still less do I wish to allow those such as yourself to try to subvert such power and emotion into a petty 'hey, look, god' argument.

Oh and by the way, the emotions we feel are increasingly understandable through neurophysiology. Does that make them less important to the human condition? Not a bit.

[Outrider]

I should imagine it seems vague to you because you don't trouble yourself much over it.

Evidenced, presumably, from the amount of time they don't spend here discussing that very topic, because of their complete disinterest?

It seems quite straightforward to me.

Not the most inspiring introduction ever, but do go on.

There are people of a reductionist, eliminative materialist, empiricist bent with a limited range of things which have meaning then there are those who think there's a bit more and/ or that it's a bit more complicated with ideas and abstracts and experiences and feelings, and greatness and the numinous and that because it isn't described adequately by those isms, it's referred to as the spiritual a term which has different meanings in different contexts.

So there are people who are looking for claims to be somehow validated, and other people who will believe anything you tell them if it makes them feel good. You're right, that is fairly straight forward, I don't think many people are arguing that (so long as you're not suggesting that everyone is split into those two groups).

I think the bit you missed was the bit where you think the first group should be more like the latter - that's where it stops being quite so straight forward.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidenced, presumably, from the amount of time they don't spend here discussing that very topic, because of their complete disinterest?

Not the most inspiring introduction ever, but do go on.

So there are people who are looking for claims to be somehow validated, and other people who will believe anything you tell them if it makes them feel good. You're right, that is fairly straight forward, I don't think many people are arguing that (so long as you're not suggesting that everyone is split into those two groups).

I think the bit you missed was the bit where you think the first group should be more like the latter - that's where it stops being quite so straight forward.

O.

Yes they want their claims validated in a way that satisfies and fits in with their empiricism, physicalism, materialism and naturalism, all of which turn out to be circular arguments.

So spirituality could mean recognising the shortcomings of all these -isms and living with that.

I have nothing against them as tools or methodologies.

[Gordon]

I should imagine it seems vague to you because you don't trouble yourself much over it. It seems quite straightforward to me,.

It seems vague because it is vague: it's hard to engage with something that is, in effect, lacking in precision and meaning in order to know what it actually is in the first place.

[Outrider]

Yes they want their claims validated in a way that satisfies and fits in with their empiricism, physicalism, materialism and naturalism, all of which turn out to be circular arguments.

No, they want the claims validated. They often come to empiricism as it's a reliable methodology, but no-one is averse to you coming up with an alternative methodology except, it seems, you.

So spirituality could mean recognising the shortcomings of all these -isms and living with that.

No, it seems that spirituality means recognising the shortcomings of those methodologies and deciding to throw the notion of intellectual rigour out of the window and just accepting any old shit.

I have nothing against them as tools or methodologies.

I, by contrast, have something against accepting unsubstantiated claims. If you don't like empiricism, fine, but if you don't have a valid alternative all you have are claims of magic.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, they want the claims validated.

Then one wonders why many of these "validation seekers" are prepared to selectively abandon the principle of sufficient reason

They often come to empiricism as it's a reliable methodology,

And fail to see that methodological empiricism itself finds no empirical evidence for thinking that empiricism is the only way to truth and reality (philosophical empiricism). In other words ,selective validation and scientism.

I'm all for methodological empiricism, as much as you but that isn't warrant to claim it is the only way to truth or reality.

[Nearly Sane]

Then one wonders why many of these "validation seekers" are prepared to selectively abandon the principle of sufficient reason And fail to see that methodological empiricism itself finds no empirical evidence for thinking that empiricism is the only way to truth and reality (philosophical empiricism). In other words ,selective validation and scientism.

I'm all for methodological empiricism, as much as you but that isn't warrant to claim it is the only way to truth or reality.

Just to note that your misuse of the principle of sufficient reason contradicts your bit on empiricism since you are making it absolute when that cannot be demonstrated. Your thinking is a soggy mess of bombast and idiocy