Religion: The Deuce

[The Great Hippo]

That's not true, history is not completely subjective. We can't know history with perfect accuracy, but we can certainly defend some historical facts over others (we all agree things like the Holocaust happened, right?). By your assumptions, nothing, religion or otherwise, is or ever can be historically valid.

I'm sorry, I wasn't being clear - this is an issue concerning ancient history, not modern history. At some point in our continual progression as a species, we arrived at a juncture where we were able to reproduce documents in such a manner and with such volume that the issues of copying, recopying, editing, and the destruction of passages became (mostly) irrelevant. I don't want to pin it down to the exact date of the invention of the printing press, but that probably had a lot to do with it. But the further back you move from that point, the murkier this whole thing becomes. There's basically two problems with ancient historical documentation - it's anecdotal and it's probably been screwed with somewhere along the line (multiple times).

Anyway, my point isn't so much that 'nothing can be historically valid' as it was that 'first, you have to define what historical validity means, and you're just going to define that into something that leaves you the winner'.

[Phill]

However, it seems that you have a set of belief that is reasonably harmful, so keep up the good work, just be mindful that "belief in Jesus" doesn't mean much as one can put many things in this character. I would also suggest trying the energoumene way of understanding Jesus if your brand of Christianity makes it possible : some of your previous posts contained false informations that comes not from believing in Jesus but in how you were teached or learned about Jesus. Arguing on the internet is good to feel reassured in a chosen faith but that feeling can come from inside too and doesn't depend on the lack of knowledge of someone else.

So how would this "energoumene" way of understanding Jesus help? Perhaps you could point out the false information I said? Sorry, I know you said you weren't going to post again, but I'm just curious. I'm trying not to intentionally mislead people and would value understanding what it is that I've got wrong.

Right, so, out of curiosity, how many non-Christian scholars think that Jesus actually came back to life? Aka, this point is irrelevant.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The impression I got from the Wikipedia page (as you say, it's the poor man's Encyclopedia Britannica so can't claim how accurate it is!) that Islamic scholars differ on whether Muhammed went to heaven or to Jerusalem.

I'm guessing that there are no non-Christian scholars who believe that Jesus came back to life, mostly because if they did believe that they'd probably be Christians.

I think the rest of the discussion has moved into areas I can't really talk about - I am not a historian. We've talked about the manuscript evidence for the Bible before and I don't think I can add much to it

[duckshirt]

I'm sorry, I wasn't being clear - this is an issue concerning ancient history, not modern history. At some point in our continual progression as a species, we arrived at a juncture where we were able to reproduce documents in such a manner and with such volume that the issues of copying, recopying, editing, and the destruction of passages became (mostly) irrelevant.

True, but even for ancient history before the printing press, it's not like we're totally taking shots in the dark. We still can find some facts about history that are at least more evident than others.

[mf92]

I'm speaking from a strictly American standpoint (specifically northeastern) here, but I have been noticing a change in religion's role in society. My generation (teenagers to those in their early thirties) are becoming increasingly atheistic and agnostic. For the most part, our parents either do not touch upon religion at all or are have liberal beliefs (ex: they do not suggest that non believers go to hell). The majority of the people I meet are religious, but almost all of those around my age (I'd estimate about 75-80%) that I have met do not hold any belief (myself included). Religion's grasp on society has been loosening with every generation. There have been the strict Catholics, their Protestant children, and eventually Christians who believe that God created the Big Bang. You can see this shift in the presidency: first we had George W. Bush who said that God wanted America to go to war and now we have Obama who believes in evolution.
My question is this: Do you think that America will eventually become an agnostic/atheist country? If so, when? Within the next generation? Within the next two generations?


P.S. I'd like to apologize for speaking just of Christianity, but Christians DO make up 70-something percent of America's population. Please feel free to voice your opinion on your own religion's progression. ALSO, if you're from another country, I'd like to hear your opinion on religion in your area too.

[the_stabbage]

Canadian here: among all the people I have become acquainted with at my place of higher education, there are exactly zero religious - at least in the sense where they will talk loudly and openly about it. From what I've gathered - and unfortunately it's been through the media - the US is a lot more religious than Commonwealth and European countries (i.e. the rest of the old "Christendom").

In your post you mentioned "There have been the strict Catholics, their Protestant children, and eventually Christians who believe that God created the Big Bang."

Be careful. You are assuming that Protestants are automatically more liberal than Catholics. This is very much not so. I live in an uptight part of the country (for Canada), and it's Protestant. The Catholic town I stayed at last year had a church, sex shop, bar, and liquor store all on the same intersection

[Zamfir]

From a European POV, I was surprised by a few parts of your post:

There have been the strict Catholics, their Protestant children, and eventually Christians who believe that God created the Big Bang.

From this I take it you think that protestants are on the whole less strict religious people than Catholics? In my country, it is often the other way round, protestants tend to be the more strict believers. The offical catholic Church is of course very strict and conservative, but here catholics are very, very likely to have a looser view than the church.

Another thing that surprised me: you see Obama as a step away from religious-inspired politics? Again, from here over the ocean both G.W. Bush and Obama look a lot more explicitly religious than for example the old Bush and Clinton looked. Both presidents are often seen here as part of an American trend towards more religion in politics.

(BTW, the Big Bang is officially accepted Vatican doctrine, and has been since before there was rigourous evidence for it. On evolution too I thought the Catholic Church was rather easy, but I might be mistaken)

[Spacemilk]

(BTW, the Big Bang is officially accepted Vatican doctrine, and has been since before there was rigourous evidence for it. On evolution too I thought the Catholic Church was rather easy, but I might be mistaken)

Er I hadn't heard the part about the Big Bang, but I can say as a fact that the pope has stated the evolution is cool with the Catholic Church. (source: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm)

text:

Spoiler:

3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points...

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory...

6. With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans.

So basically evolution was already acknowledged as a hypothesis that needed to be tested, back when it was still a hypothesis; then he says that now that it's a theory, it's a good one; then he says that, in the end, science and religion are not and should not be seen as contrary or competing; rather they should and do complement each other.

So with that being said, it irritates me a little when people say things like "religion losing its grasp on society." Yes, people have done some bad things in the name of religion in the past (and they continue to do so), but it doesn't have to be that way. Isn't it possible that people are finally learning the way religion should truly interact with their lives? Also, clearly from my spoiler'd quote, believing in evolution is not the same thing as religion "losing its grasp on you."

Lastly, the exclusivistic belief that you'll go to hell if you don't accept Jesus (or whoever) as your savior has been on the down-and-out for years, and with good reason. I know the Catholic Church hasn't held that belief for a while; iirc that movement away from that as an official position started in the early 1900s and was officially confirmed sometime around Vatican II. Yeah, there are still some fundamentalist groups that say that. I dislike lumping such diverse groups under "Christianity" (you know Fred Phelps considers himself a Christian, right?) but it's sort of necessary unless you want to make huge posts listing the thousands of exceptions.

[mf92]

You are all quite right, I was being a bit bias in my post and drawing on personal experience (always a bad idea to do that). I went to a Catholic school when I was younger and basically anything that even CLOSELY resembled a deviant of the religion (even different sects of Christianity) was frowned upon, but this is just one experience in one place. And when I was younger my mother had taken me to a Protestant church for a couple of years where the pastor and everyone there was very open to things such as science that opposed the Bible's teachings, gay rights, etc. Sorry for the generalizations!

Spacemilk, it's not my intent in this post to say it's GOOD that religion is fading from society (which is what I'M seeing happening where I live, that doesn't mean it is), I have many religious family members and don't think that they would be better or worse without religion. They're all intelligent, good people. I agree with you that it's wrong to judge religion by the wrongdoings that have been done in its name in the past (and present). I never understood why some people stated their reason for being without belief was because of wars that were waged in religion's name. It's wrong to judge a group by individuals (frivolous example: women who say "my boyfriend cheated on me, therefore all men are jerks!"). I guess I did just that with my assessment of Catholics and Protestants, though. Apologies!

[Spacemilk]

You are all quite right, I was being a bit bias in my post and drawing on personal experience (always a bad idea to do that). I went to a Catholic school when I was younger and basically anything that even CLOSELY resembled a deviant of the religion (even different sects of Christianity) was frowned upon, but this is just one experience in one place. And when I was younger my mother had taken me to a Protestant church for a couple of years where the pastor and everyone there was very open to things such as science that opposed the Bible's teachings, gay rights, etc. Sorry for the generalizations!

Spacemilk, it's not my intent in this post to say it's GOOD that religion is fading from society (which is what I'M seeing happening where I live, that doesn't mean it is), I have many religious family members and don't think that they would be better or worse without religion. They're all intelligent, good people. I agree with you that it's wrong to judge religion by the wrongdoings that have been done in its name in the past (and present). I never understood why some people stated their reason for being without belief was because of wars that were waged in religion's name. It's wrong to judge a group by individuals (frivolous example: women who say "my boyfriend cheated on me, therefore all men are jerks!"). I guess I did just that with my assessment of Catholics and Protestants, though. Apologies!

Heh, it's all good. I agree with what you said about people not being religious because of what's been done in that religion's name in the past. I mean it's fair to say that some Catholics, especially during the middle ages and even still today, do some pretty awful things in the name of Catholicism. (I'm Catholic btw, so I'm singling Catholics out not because I have some vendetta, but because it's what I know and understand best) I guess I've always sort of seen it this way: Catholicism, and the Catholic church, are sort of an ideal that adherents to the religion aspire to understand and follow, but it's likely no one will ever get it just right because we are human and fallible. If you wish to disagree with the Catholic church, be sure to do so based on its tenets and not on the behavior or fleeting beliefs of its individual members, because those members can be wrong. I can't count the number of times friends asked me as a kid if I worship Mary (this may not make any sense to anyone who isn't a Christian; sorry) because someone had given them that idea. That's sort of a silly, minor example of judging a whole religion based on either rumor or the behavior of one person, but if you want a more extreme example, it'd be like assuming all Catholics eat babies because you saw one person eating babies and they claimed to be Catholic. And I think this applies to all religions and atheistic beliefs.

[Rakysh]

I can only speak for where I live, but my local church has about 70 on the electoral role, with about 20 of those being recent or up-coming weddings. The majority of these are older than 60, with a few families. The parish contains about 1200 people. My school of about 800 has a CU of about 12. However, that particular CU is generally considered to be very uncool. According to the Bishop of Birmingham, there are about 75,000 churchgoers in the city of roughly 1,000,000, if you stretch the term to its utmost limits.

The UK now is largely post-Christian. I'm fairly sure there are now more practising Muslims than Christians, but the feel of the place in general is agnosticism. The proper separation of Church and State is only a matter of years away. In my opinion this is a good thing. Faith is a positive force, but religions often dictate a point of view to their subscribers. The fact that all assemblies in public schools need to have a "broadly Christian message" is incredibly silly. The UK has seen this decline in the past 60 years (I think).

As to the US, I think that it is becoming similar to the UK in many parts. The bible belt will obviously take a lot longer that say central NY to become less religious, but I definitely think that in the next few years, the political power of the evangelical church will be broken, even if its numbers continue to remain steady. Why? Well, it is becoming less mainstream, and is suffering from a president who doesn't need its votes. All this is just from the feeling I get from over the pond- I may very well be spouting crap.

[SpazzyMcGee]

I'm a college sophomore right now and a surprising amount of my friends are non-believers (atheist/agnostic, they are pretty much the same thing but a lot of people prefer a distinction so I'll just say non-believer for the time being). However you have to take into account I as well as you guys most likely don't hang around with a microcosm of the sociological demographics. I for example am a physics major and pretty much anyone who has a physicist's mentality isn't a believer. If you are simply in college, not a religious college of course, you are likely among a group of people slightly more intelligent than the average and studies show the more intelligent the person the less likely he or she is to be religious. And who knows, perhaps religiousness increases with age. Maybe more of our age group will be religious later on, but despite having doubts of the validity of our personal observations of religious density in America I do see a trend leading to a higher number of non-believers.

Looking back it is clear society seems to get more and more liberal as the years go by. Society has become more "touchy feely" and fewer and fewer people are willing to accept billions of otherwise good people will be tortured for eternity after death. They also seem to respect others' beliefs more. So instead of parents teaching their kids about fire and brimstone and sending them off to Bible camp if they even mention personal religious doubt they let their kids believe whatever they want to believe. I personally attended a Lutheran elementary school, believed what I was taught every day in religion class, and my family went to church. However at home my parents were religiously aloof. My dad never and has never talked about the issue and the little my mom has said about the issue makes it clear she would call herself agnostic if need be. I get the feeling a lot of families are to a greater or lesser extent like this. Without the religious 'indoctrination" kids are more free to evaluate the issues for themselves instead of being told what to believe. Being an religiously unaffiliated atheist, I of course believe the ultimate "right answer" is non-belief and therefor I see this liberal trend a course away from religion.

Then again it must be noted that although many 1st world nations in Europe are have seen a major loss of religion among its people America has been known for its religious fervor. There have been several religious revivals in American history and given the modern day atheist outspokenness and recent statistics on the increase of non-believers I believe some of the most religious people in this country are counting on another such revival. Seeing the increasingly direct complaints/attacks against religion I see the extremely religious becoming even more so under the increased cultural pressure and they may seek to change the trend themselves with religious outreach programs turning their predicted religious revival into a self fulfilling prophecy.

[Vaniver]

Note that "80% of teens I know" and "80% of teens" are very different things, especially once you get to college. It shouldn't surprise you that most students at a state school are agnostic- or that most students at a Catholic school are religious.

Also, the age of people does make a difference. A lot of people turn to faith in their 20s and 30s- and whether or not that will happen with the current generation, only time can tell.

[Brooklynxman]

Note that "80% of teens I know" and "80% of teens" are very different things, especially once you get to college. It shouldn't surprise you that most students at a state school are agnostic- or that most students at a Catholic school are religious.

Also, the age of people does make a difference. A lot of people turn to faith in their 20s and 30s- and whether or not that will happen with the current generation, only time can tell.

In addition since the start of the recession church attendance has gone up signifigantly (yes, it is shown that usually when the economy is in a downturn church attendance goes up as people with nothing left turn to religion for comfort).

Religion is undergoing a slow but drastic change in order to adjust to the drasticly different society today then these religions have lived in for thousands of years. It will understandibly be a slow process (see: the last hundred years or so) with the status quo being challenged many times, but I forsee religion coming through, especially since the die-hard conservative denominations are matched in number by the more accepting denominations (roman catholic church being up there, though still a bit behind on the times)

[SpazzyMcGee]

It should be noted that religion is also losing ground in American government. The Republican Party has been in bed with conservative Christians for years now and religious affiliations were held against the Republican vice presidential candidate. Even Obama's religious affiliations were held against him. The Republican Party is being held back by its religious connections and though it won't stop aiming to appease the religious community to get votes it will most likely rethink every religious politician that puts his or her name into the nomination box.

[Philwelch]

A lot of non-religious people just replace their religious beliefs with some other form of strongly held dogma. I'm more interested in seeing the spread of more rationalistic epistemological beliefs, rather than more materialistic metaphysical beliefs.

[the_stabbage]

A lot of non-religious people just replace their religious beliefs with some other form of strongly held dogma. I'm more interested in seeing the spread of more rationalistic epistemological beliefs, rather than more materialistic metaphysical beliefs.

With the popularity of heavy metal and ecological issues, there might be a revival of "pagan" faiths: this is already huge in the metal community. We'll see if it will rival the Buddhism/Hinduism that became popular in the 60s.

PM me, I'd like to hear what you mean by rationalistic epistemological beliefs vs. materialistic metaphysical beliefs.

[mf92]

A lot of non-religious people just replace their religious beliefs with some other form of strongly held dogma. I'm more interested in seeing the spread of more rationalistic epistemological beliefs, rather than more materialistic metaphysical beliefs.

With the popularity of heavy metal and ecological issues, there might be a revival of "pagan" faiths: this is already huge in the metal community. We'll see if it will rival the Buddhism/Hinduism that became popular in the 60s.

PM me, I'd like to hear what you mean by rationalistic epistemological beliefs vs. materialistic metaphysical beliefs.

I second the last comment. I think I understand what Philwelch is saying, but only vaguely.
Regarding your comment on the possible emergence of paganism in the future, I vaguely remember watching a Taboo episode (national geographic channel) a while ago that dealt with the topic of how there is an exponential growth of pagans in Australia. I haven't met anyone with pagan beliefs yet, but I have met quite a few people with watered down Buddhist views (which you also mentioned).

Another thing that surprised me: you see Obama as a step away from religious-inspired politics? Again, from here over the ocean both G.W. Bush and Obama look a lot more explicitly religious than for example the old Bush and Clinton looked. Both presidents are often seen here as part of an American trend towards more religion in politics.

Well, they are both openly Christian and Obama HAS discussed his belief often (there was even that religious discussion held on CNN with him and Hillary). BUT Obama seems (at least to me) to support the separation of church and state more than Bush did. Here's a video where he discusses this, if you would like to watch it:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Video/News-and ... State.aspx

Now, he's a bit wishy-washy about it, but definitely less dogmatic than Bush was. While Obama may be more religious than Clinton was (I don't agree with your comment on Bush Sr. as he allegedly told a journalist that he didn't even view atheists as citizens), he is still, in my opinion, a less religious president than the one we had for the past eight years.

[Philwelch]

PM me, I'd like to hear what you mean by rationalistic epistemological beliefs vs. materialistic metaphysical beliefs.

I second the last comment. I think I understand what Philwelch is saying, but only vaguely.

The point isn't really whether you believe in the supernatural or whether God or angels exist. There are tons of non-religious people who don't have "religion" per se, in that they don't believe in the supernatural or the mystical. But this is metaphysics. And while it may be increasingly popular to abandon religion, the root cause of religion—irrational, total devotion to a given belief system—is no less popular. Atheists usually hold this devotion to belief systems that are purely moral or political, which in the wrong hands can be every bit as dangerous as devotion to religion.

I would say it's rare to find someone who truly does not have this level of irrational devotion to a belief system. Even among atheists.

[duckshirt]

Now, he's a bit wishy-washy about it, but definitely less dogmatic than Bush was. While Obama may be more religious than Clinton was

Is Clinton known for not being that religious? I always considered him pretty religious, or, at least, he was... He was raised by non-Christian parents, but walked by himself to church when he was younger. I actually think of him as more religious than Bush Sr. and Reagan, because as far as I know, those are the only two out of the last six presidents or so who never really publicly stated their religious convictions. Although, presidential candidates are more likely to state their religion publicly now than in the past, because people seem to want to get to know the president more personally now.

[SpazzyMcGee]

...the root cause of religion—irrational, total devotion to a given belief system—is no less popular.

I agree with you on irrationally being the root of what is bad in religion. Nothing in religion is held to rational scrutiny. That is why faith is a huge part of religion these days. Having faith is believing something for no real reason. If you ask the average religious person WHY they believe the stuff they do they will inevitably answer you with "I just have faith" which immediatly washes their hands of any need to substantiate themselves. This whole notion of faith is irrational.

However, I disagree with you past that point. So long as mankind exists there will be passionate people. Anyone who believes in a cause enough will be willing to do anything. However that doesn't mean they are irrational. They may have a very good reason for being so passionate and no matter how many times you ask them why they have the position they do they will never say they believe it "just cuz" as their religious counterparts do.

So in other words "devotion"/passion isn't the problem with religion. It's root cause is irrationality. The problem is that religious people are unable to give you a good reason WHY they are passionate other than their gut feeling... or faith.

[the_stabbage]

The point isn't really whether you believe in the supernatural or whether God or angels exist. There are tons of non-religious people who don't have "religion" per se, in that they don't believe in the supernatural or the mystical. But this is metaphysics. And while it may be increasingly popular to abandon religion, the root cause of religion—irrational, total devotion to a given belief system—is no less popular. Atheists usually hold this devotion to belief systems that are purely moral or political, which in the wrong hands can be every bit as dangerous as devotion to religion.

I would say it's rare to find someone who truly does not have this level of irrational devotion to a belief system. Even among atheists.

I agree with you that non-theists do hold equally irrational "secular" beliefs. However, I think it can be argued that even non-metaphysical beliefs held by atheists have an implicit metaphysics (religions' metaphysics being more explicit). An eye-opening article I read somewhere said that the dominant western views of the Self are the Kantian ethical subject and the homo economicus (rational agent). Both of these are metaphysical ideas, relying on an assumption of a very high level of rationality, and access to perfect knowledge, by everyone. They are used to justify democracy and capitalism - two systems that are explicitly adhered to by most Westerners and explicitly have no metaphysics.

[SpazzyMcGee]

I used to be a christian but I slowly faded from religion because I never realy felt as though I truly believed in it and I didn't feel happy with in the confines of such beliefs. I however dont mind religion one bit because I think its good for a person to have some sort of belief or ideal structure in thier life. It gives a good amount of people all kinds of views and perspectives. I find though that religion isn't really truly losing its grasp but is also not as prominent in society as it once was. Religion will never truly die out completely and it has its place in society. Yes there are those who in the past and also in the present that have used it as an excuse to execute some sort of plan of thiers or to manipulate it to thier gain. This doesnt make it wrong though it just makes you aware of human nature. All religions though lose wind and die down it has been happening for centuries. Consider all the people before christianity, catholisism, and ect. that use to believe in many Gods and Goddess in greece and ancient roam. Even before that the first humans had beliefs about nature as an equivalent to God and creation. I dont think that religion losing "its grasp" on this country is bad nor is it good. I do dislike though that among the people who say they are religous end up doing things that are suppose to be against thier religous morals and values. I live in North Carolina and at my job I know someone who claims to be hardcore christian and even tries to get me to go to his church. Though this doesnt dissuade from the fact that he drinks, has had premarital sex, and is completely racist. So I think you can attribute the lack of religous hold to societal woes as well. There are so many factors in this topic.

For an atheist to say the world is better off with religion still around necessitates a pessimistic opinion of mankind because it is extremely depressing to think mankind cannot function without being in a delusional state. If an atheist has the slightest hint of optimism towards humanity he or she would prefer a world without religion. I have said this before but everything religion provides can be provided by other things without the delusion religion requires. Zen Buddhism for example is a great way find guidance and yet it has no supernatural mysticism. Secular Humanism has some really great guidelines too. In a perfect world there would be no religion, everyone would follow different philosophies such as Zen or Secular Humanism.

[JoshuaZ]

I'm speaking from a strictly American standpoint (specifically northeastern) here, but I have been noticing a change in religion's role in society. My generation (teenagers to those in their early thirties) are becoming increasingly atheistic and agnostic.

This is the sort of thing that's good to try to see what the stats actually say. The overall percentage of the population that self-identifies as atheist or agnostic is rising if one looks at the last 30 years. However, the fraction that is willing to use the word "atheist" is tiny. It apparently has very negative connotations. If one looks at more broadly those who identify as not religious, the percentages are much higher and the rate of growth is also high. Other research shows that especially in the younger cohorts, the percentage that is irreligious has grown rapidly (see for example this article - I can't unfortunately track down the study in question). I'd speculate that some of that is part of a more immediate reaction to perceived problems with religion and religious individuals in the last few years.

For the most part, our parents either do not touch upon religion at all or are have liberal beliefs (ex: they do not suggest that non believers go to hell). The majority of the people I meet are religious, but almost all of those around my age (I'd estimate about 75-80%) that I have met do not hold any belief (myself included). Religion's grasp on society has been loosening with every generation.

I suspect that your 75-80% is coming very much from the sort of people and locations you spend time with. The studies linked to above suggest that the percentage of the overall population in the young cohort is at most around 40% and even that's likely an overestimate. Also, note that religion levels come and go. Indeed, over the last 200 years the level of religiosity in the US has more or less grown and we're only now seeing a substantial change in that pattern. Finke and Stark's "The Churching of America" is an excellent book on this topic which makes it very clear that the US population has been getting steadily more religious by many measures (such as church attendance rates). So saying that religion's grasp on society has been loosening with every generation seems inaccurate.

There have been the strict Catholics, their Protestant children, and eventually Christians who believe that God created the Big Bang.

I'm not sure what your point is here. This doesn't make them less religious. I'm also confused by what you mean when you say "their Protestant children, and eventually Christians". The most obvious parsing of this sentence makes it irrelevant to the point. Are you trying to argue that Christianity is becoming more accepting of science? That's a distinct claim. But note also that the Big Bang was actually proposed initially by Georges Lemaître who was a Catholic priest.

You can see this shift in the presidency: first we had George W. Bush who said that God wanted America to go to war and now we have Obama who believes in evolution.

This seems like a non sequitor. What does one have to do with the other? One could just as well accept evolution and still think that God wants the US to go to war. Moreover, Bush seems to accept some form of theistic evolution (at minimum, given his comments. It seems clear he isn't a Young Earth Creationist). There are many deeply religious people who are fine with evolution.

My question is this: Do you think that America will eventually become an agnostic/atheist country? If so, when? Within the next generation? Within the next two generations?

That depends to some extent on what you mean. Do do you mean that a majority will be irreligious? Do you mean that the majority will explicitly self-identify as "atheist" or "agnostic"? Do you mean that religion will simply be pushed out of the public sphere that it has intruded on so much? Without a more precise definition it is hard to say.

[Philwelch]

However, I disagree with you past that point. So long as mankind exists there will be passionate people. Anyone who believes in a cause enough will be willing to do anything. However that doesn't mean they are irrational. They may have a very good reason for being so passionate and no matter how many times you ask them why they have the position they do they will never say they believe it "just cuz" as their religious counterparts do.

So in other words "devotion"/passion isn't the problem with religion. It's root cause is irrationality. The problem is that religious people are unable to give you a good reason WHY they are passionate other than their gut feeling... or faith.

I said "irrational devotion", meaning both conditions were necessary. Some people have a quite rational devotion to eating healthy, exercising, learning, or engaging in some other type of personal discipline that helps them function better, and that's fine. And lots of folks have irrational beliefs they aren't especially devoted to, like astrology. But if you turn astrology, or Christianity, or Islam into a primary focus of your life, well now that's what I'm talking about.

A Muslim will never question the truth of Islam. It is accepted without question. The same is true of a devoted Leninist. The Leninist may have better arguments for why he believes in the violent overthrow of the government, the summary execution of the aristocracy, and the enslavement of all perceived class enemies, but to question Leninism is not worthy of rational argument so much as it is worthy of being sent to a gulag.

The dangerous part of religion is not permitting yourself (and, for extra credit, not permitting others) to think or say anything that is heresy, where "heresy" means "disagreement with some dogma". Secular folks, though, can be just as bad at not permitting themselves or others to think or say, well...what you can't say.

[Spacemilk]

I hate to use Catholicism as an example again, because I'd like to introduce some diversity, but once again it's the example I know best.

I know the concept of rationality is very important with a lot of posters here, and I know in the past (think Middle Ages) the Catholic church did a lot of things without a clear rational justification. (or at least not a positive one - I'm discounting reasons like "seizing more power" or "going along with political leanings" and things of that nature) However, in recent years, the Catholic church has made a push to think carefully before they rule on some question of religious beliefs, to think of a rational basis for their ruling. Granted, this reasoning is based on a number of assumptions, or axioms, that the Catholic church has (such as, God exists, Jesus exists and is the Son of God, etc. - the Catholic church may have proofs for this, and I apologize if this is the case because I haven't read them). But they have a rational, logical basis for their decisions (at least, the ones I have read ) that follows logically from the initial axioms, and yes they do consider scientific evidence.

So how do we reconcile this fact with the fact that people still seem to say things like "oh I don't know, just because" when they are questioned on some of the tenets of their faith? The proofs exist; most often they haven't made the effort to bother learning them or understanding them. Within the Catholic church, any time a new explanation for a rule comes out, there's an effort to help people understand it; the priests will try everything short of going door-to-door to help people out. (this has been my experience)

So please, don't automatically assume that every tenet of religion is done for some completely irrational religious belief. If you disagree with a religion's particular belief, likely it's because you disagree with one of their base axioms.

Here's an example: Abortion. (oh god please do not turn this into an abortion debate*) One axiom of the Catholic church is that all life, from the moment of conception until the moment of death, should be protected and respected regardless of the nature of their creation and the nature of the person and their actions. You may disagree that life begins at conception, or that people who have committed heinous crimes should be allowed to live, or that a woman should be required to carry a fetus (who may or may not qualify as human depending on your view) if she was raped or if carrying the fetus to full term will kill her. You might have reasons for these beliefs that involve justifications like the importance of personal choice; the importance of the utility of a person and their potentially harmful effect on a community; or that science may have shown that life doesn't begin at conception; or an argument that scientifically speaking, human life doesn't count as human life unless there is brain function. There are a million reasons why you might disagree with the Catholic church's stance. But those are your own axioms. You have chosen to accept them, and you can keep digging and digging and asking "why did I chose this reason? on what rational basis is this reason founded?" until you reach the base axiom, and at that point you will have to say that you quite simply believe in that axiom.

*If you want to respond to this argument, DO NOT talk about the reasons why abortion is right or wrong, unless it's to correct my characterization of the Catholic church's stance. You are welcome to continue using the example though, it's just that this is not the place to have this discussion. If you want to disprove what I've said, your best bet is to disprove my claim that everyone's beliefs can be reduced to a set of unprovable axioms - even atheists or agnostics.

So my point is this: First of all, religions generally have a lot more rationality behind their decisions, but observers of this religion fail to understand the reasoning and therefore seem to have an irrational belief. Also, please stop saying things like "I am not religious because I see supposed Christians acting like hyprocrites so I assume the religion is the fault of this." Second of all, behind their belief system everyone has a set of unprovable axioms. Even agnostics or atheists who believe that science can explain everything are still placing their trust in something that's unprovable - you can't prove that science CAN explain everything. (or maybe you can and I have missed out on life by not studying philosophy much more deeply than I have. correct me if I'm wrong please!) Third, a disagreement in axioms should never lead to repression of dissenters, as Philwelch said above. It should also not lead to belittling the dissenters, at least not the well-educated ones who can clearly explain themselves, as has been done frequently in this thread. (maybe it's just me, but a lot of posts have had a sort of sneering undertone when they spoke of religious conservatives. yeah they can be intolerant assholes sometimes *cough* Fred Phelps *cough* but that doesn't mean you have to sink to their level.)

[*GC*]

I'm 23 and I have been to church a handful of times in my life. My grandparents would take us a few times a few, we weren't really forced to go but we got Wendy's afterward so we did. I mom took us 1 time and that was it, she was too busy and I suspect that 1 trip reminded her of why she didn't make time.

I don't know what my beliefs are, I am a science minded person, so religion doesn't cut it for me, it reminds me of when you watch a movie and say "That couldn't really happen." and you are told "Shut up, it's just a movie, enjoy it."

I like to think there is something else, something after this, something we aren't aware of. I find it hard to believe all of this is just a fluke. But I have no proof.

What I don't like about religion is you are just supposed to accept what you are told as fact and not question it, that's what faith is, believing something with no proof.

They say if you aren't a believer you will go to "Hell", my question is why would "God" give me the power of rational, logical though then demand I turn it off if I want to go to "Heaven"

The best I can tell is I will always wonder, I will believe in something and not know what it is, I will do my best to live a clean, honest, moral life, and if that isn't good enough then oh well I guess.

[Spacemilk]

What I don't like about religion is you are just supposed to accept what you are told as fact and not question it, that's what faith is, believing something with no proof.

Says who? You? Some random person down the street? Oh, you mean to say that the only people who say this are people who don't understand their own religion in the first place so you probably shouldn't be basing your opinion of religions on what they have to say. Oh ok then.

They say if you aren't a believer you will go to "Hell", my question is why would "God" give me the power of rational, logical though then demand I turn it off if I want to go to "Heaven"

This "they" you are referring to is a very, very small group of people. And it's extremely insulting to assume that every religious person is a mindless zombie, incapable of rational thought. It's also ironic that you seem irritated at religion's apparent close-mindedness, but the only reason you see them as close-minded is because you clearly haven't bothered to learn about them.

The best I can tell is I will always wonder, I will believe in something and not know what it is, I will do my best to live a clean, honest, moral life, and if that isn't good enough then oh well I guess.

"you will believe in something and not know what it is" - how is believing in something but not knowing what it is any better than believing in something, knowing what it is, but not necessarily understanding why you believe in it? As to doing your best - uh, most religions have at least adopted an inclusivist view that accepts that people who do this are still going to go to "Heaven".

[Philwelch]

Spacemilk, I understand that the Catholic Church is really good at theology, which means that Catholic doctrine follows rather logically from basic axioms of faith. I wish other religions were as good as theology as Catholicism. But it's the axioms of faith themselves that I am questioning. They require a degree of faith, and to my understanding, the Church recognizes this. Atheists pride themselves on rationality because they don't do faith.

"Rationality" is a bad word to use here, since most of us have unexamined axioms (Hume was good at finding these). "Empiricism" is a better one.

But sometimes these are side issues—my main concern was in highlighting the hypocrisy of the atheist who claims to be above faith and dogma, but really isn't. From a sociological or anthropological standpoint, I imagine most people in religious societies are religious out of conformity. In an increasingly atheist society, it's not that we've done away with reasoning-by-conformity, it's that the unquestioned dogma has moved away from the realm of what we traditionally call "religion".

[Spacemilk]

Spacemilk, I understand that the Catholic Church is really good at theology, which means that Catholic doctrine follows rather logically from basic axioms of faith. I wish other religions were as good as theology as Catholicism. But it's the axioms of faith themselves that I am questioning. They require a degree of faith, and to my understanding, the Church recognizes this. Atheists pride themselves on rationality because they don't do faith.

"Rationality" is a bad word to use here, since most of us have unexamined axioms (Hume was good at finding these). "Empiricism" is a better one.

But sometimes these are side issues—my main concern was in highlighting the hypocrisy of the atheist who claims to be above faith and dogma, but really isn't. From a sociological or anthropological standpoint, I imagine most people in religious societies are religious out of conformity. In an increasingly atheist society, it's not that we've done away with reasoning-by-conformity, it's that the unquestioned dogma has moved away from the realm of what we traditionally call "religion".

Re: your first paragraph: But that was my point - atheists pride themselves on something which they really do have. They cite reasons for their nonbelief like "God cannot be observed" or "God cannot be proven" as reasons why they do not believe, yet these reasons are based on axioms that place utmost faith in their ability to reason, and their ability to observe. You can't prove that you have the ultimate power of observation, because if there were something that you couldn't observe, you would never know about it. (now I almost sound agnostic, lol) If you make a claim like that, you are putting a degree of faith in your powers of observation.

Re: your second paragraph: I completely agree. By the same token, we've also redefined "tolerance" - you are allowed to have your own beliefs, as long as those beliefs mesh with the popular beliefs. If you believe something different, you better keep your mouth shut or you are "intolerant", even if you aren't attempting to force your beliefs on someone else. (See the case of Miss California for a great example of this) I read a book once called "The Cube and the Cathedral" which gave a great example of what you're talking about though - it was a rather short book, a little undeveloped, but extremely interesting. I don't remember the author, but I have the book at home and I'll tell you his name once I leave work.

[chaosspawn]

To weigh in on the topic, I don't think that religion is actually going away. There's still a lot of it in politics (there's only one atheist senator (or was it representative?)), not to mention many of the issues of the day. Religion is still a very mainstream thing. While people may be less vocal about believing in their particular sect, I get the feeling overall that it's still anticipated that a person will still have chosen one.

That said, in terms of anecdotes, I think that, here especially, you're more likely to find non-theists (hell likely to find many non traditional beliefs). I'd like to believe that geekdom is generally more accepting of alternative lifestyles/beliefs in general (it has been pointed out to me how it isn't sometimes sadly enough). Further anecdotes seem to suggest people are more religious later in life even if they weren't during their earlier years.

Also at *GC*, I think it's wrong to make blanket statements about people and religion like that. Invariably there are many ways to believe in a deity, and each carry with them a certain set of beliefs, from atheist to agnostic to theist, there's a wide spectrum.

Although with such a surfeit of religions, there does seem to potentially be more of a 'shopping around' with religion. As in people will tend to hop churches/faiths to one that's more in line with their other beliefs, rather than having whatever church they were raised in be the core on which to shape other affiliations. However, that might just be complaining from the more conservative people, as I've often heard it in the context of deriding more liberal Christians.

[the_stabbage]

A Muslim will never question the truth of Islam. It is accepted without question. The same is true of a devoted Leninist. The Leninist may have better arguments for why he believes in the violent overthrow of the government, the summary execution of the aristocracy, and the enslavement of all perceived class enemies, but to question Leninism is not worthy of rational argument so much as it is worthy of being sent to a gulag.

I'm disappointed nobody else jumped on these generalizations before I did. After all, the first two posters in this thread pointed out a false generalization about the Catholic church (ok one of them was me).

You are making false generalizations about Muslims and Leninists. Yes, it may be fashionable to hate Islam and an ardent Leninist is hard to find, but it's still very wrong. What makes a Muslim different from a Catholic or a Baptist? What makes them unable to question the truth of Islam? The very fact that Sharia law punishes apostasy shows that apostasy is possible in Islam. What about a devoted Leninist? Even if he does not show it, is he somehow incapable of doubt because of his belief? Look at Solzhenistin, Kolakowski, hell look at the entire Warsaw Pact circa 1988!

They say if you aren't a believer you will go to "Hell", my question is why would "God" give me the power of rational, logical though then demand I turn it off if I want to go to "Heaven"

There is at least one variant of Christianity that does NOT say that you have to accept God in an irrational manner. This, again, is the Catholic church. I'm sure there are others as well, but to clarify: the Catholic church holds as doctrine that anyone can find proof of God using reason and reason will never conflict with God's existence. Thomas Aquinas made it a career to try to rationally prove that God exists - and he is considered by Rome to be a saint and a Church Father. Ignorant generalizations once again.

[*GC*]

I do apologize to anyone who was offended, I shouldn't have spoken so broadly. I came in with the intent of basically asking questions and ended up making statements I'm not qualified to make.

[Philwelch]

A Muslim will never question the truth of Islam. It is accepted without question. The same is true of a devoted Leninist. The Leninist may have better arguments for why he believes in the violent overthrow of the government, the summary execution of the aristocracy, and the enslavement of all perceived class enemies, but to question Leninism is not worthy of rational argument so much as it is worthy of being sent to a gulag.

I'm disappointed nobody else jumped on these generalizations before I did. After all, the first two posters in this thread pointed out a false generalization about the Catholic church (ok one of them was me).

You are making false generalizations about Muslims and Leninists. Yes, it may be fashionable to hate Islam and an ardent Leninist is hard to find, but it's still very wrong. What makes a Muslim different from a Catholic or a Baptist?

Nothing. I just think it was getting tedious to use Christians as the example so I picked a different one.

And yes, Muslims and Leninists alike can turn apostate. At which point their fellow Muslims and Leninists will have them killed or sent to gulag, or invade their country. But even the person that remains faithful has their own internal mental defenses that kick in long before they start persecuting others, defenses that will stay raised even if they renounce violence. Defenses that take years to break through.

Eastern Europe in the 1980's was a peculiar example, because by then, most people had lost the communist faith, but were forced to pretend by communist governments (backed by Moscow) because Moscow had all the tanks. When Gorbechev up and said he wouldn't use the tanks anymore, communism fell apart. The Soviet Union itself fell because the last hard-line communists tried to use the tanks, but half the tank crews defected, and Boris Yeltsin started delivering speeches from on top of one of the tanks. Of course, two years before that, a competing denomination of communism ended up using the tanks on a large crowd of heretics and apostates in China, so...

the Catholic church holds as doctrine that anyone can find proof of God using reason and reason will never conflict with God's existence

I've read all the proofs, including Aquinas's, and they don't hold up.

But even if they did, that's not the beginning and end of it. Catholicism is not merely what logically follows from the existence of God. Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia on faith:

Cite

(a) The twofold order of knowledge. -- "The Catholic Church", says the Vatican Council, III, iv, "has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation."

...

(d) That such Divine faith is necessary, follows from the fact of Divine revelation. For revelation means that the Supreme Truth has spoken to man and revealed to him truths which are not in themselves evident to the human mind. We must, then, either reject revelation altogether, or accept it by faith; that is, we must submit our intellect to truths which we cannot understand, but which come to us on Divine authority.

It sounds to me a lot like there's something going on here that's not rational belief.

[Azrael]

And now we're just arguing about religion again.

Merged.

[mf92]

I'm speaking from a strictly American standpoint (specifically northeastern) here, but I have been noticing a change in religion's role in society. My generation (teenagers to those in their early thirties) are becoming increasingly atheistic and agnostic.

This is the sort of thing that's good to try to see what the stats actually say. The overall percentage of the population that self-identifies as atheist or agnostic is rising if one looks at the last 30 years. However, the fraction that is willing to use the word "atheist" is tiny. It apparently has very negative connotations. If one looks at more broadly those who identify as not religious, the percentages are much higher and the rate of growth is also high. Other research shows that especially in the younger cohorts, the percentage that is irreligious has grown rapidly (see for example this article - I can't unfortunately track down the study in question). I'd speculate that some of that is part of a more immediate reaction to perceived problems with religion and religious individuals in the last few years.

For the most part, our parents either do not touch upon religion at all or are have liberal beliefs (ex: they do not suggest that non believers go to hell). The majority of the people I meet are religious, but almost all of those around my age (I'd estimate about 75-80%) that I have met do not hold any belief (myself included). Religion's grasp on society has been loosening with every generation.

I suspect that your 75-80% is coming very much from the sort of people and locations you spend time with. The studies linked to above suggest that the percentage of the overall population in the young cohort is at most around 40% and even that's likely an overestimate. Also, note that religion levels come and go. Indeed, over the last 200 years the level of religiosity in the US has more or less grown and we're only now seeing a substantial change in that pattern. Finke and Stark's "The Churching of America" is an excellent book on this topic which makes it very clear that the US population has been getting steadily more religious by many measures (such as church attendance rates). So saying that religion's grasp on society has been loosening with every generation seems inaccurate.

There have been the strict Catholics, their Protestant children, and eventually Christians who believe that God created the Big Bang.

I'm not sure what your point is here. This doesn't make them less religious. I'm also confused by what you mean when you say "their Protestant children, and eventually Christians". The most obvious parsing of this sentence makes it irrelevant to the point. Are you trying to argue that Christianity is becoming more accepting of science? That's a distinct claim. But note also that the Big Bang was actually proposed initially by Georges Lemaître who was a Catholic priest.

You can see this shift in the presidency: first we had George W. Bush who said that God wanted America to go to war and now we have Obama who believes in evolution.

This seems like a non sequitor. What does one have to do with the other? One could just as well accept evolution and still think that God wants the US to go to war. Moreover, Bush seems to accept some form of theistic evolution (at minimum, given his comments. It seems clear he isn't a Young Earth Creationist). There are many deeply religious people who are fine with evolution.

My question is this: Do you think that America will eventually become an agnostic/atheist country? If so, when? Within the next generation? Within the next two generations?

That depends to some extent on what you mean. Do do you mean that a majority will be irreligious? Do you mean that the majority will explicitly self-identify as "atheist" or "agnostic"? Do you mean that religion will simply be pushed out of the public sphere that it has intruded on so much? Without a more precise definition it is hard to say.

Clarifying my previous statements is becoming tiresome, I am going to have to learn to be more specific in my posts before hitting submit. It seems that making posts ten minutes before leaving for class does not always have the best outcomes. I'll try to respond to all your points:

1. I think it's fair to let everyone know where I am getting my observations from, at least geographically. I'm from a middle class, Republican county in New Jersey. It's basically an island of conservatism (well, at least conservative for NJ, but the Republican party always wins here) in a sea of liberals. As I live right next to New York and often go there, about a fifth of my speculations are coming from a fairly liberal, upper middle class county up there. Maybe this explains where I'm coming from, maybe not, but there you have it.

2. Maybe what I'm saying about religion losing it's grip on society IS inaccurate. That's what I wanted to find out. I was hoping to hear if anyone was seeing a prevalence of atheism/agnosticism/simply less religious beliefs in their generation.

3. Yes, I am suggesting that Christianity (I don't know about other religions) is becoming more accepting of science. And it seems that those in the field of science tend to have less belief in a deity or deities than other careers, so there is somewhat of a correlation there. Here's a statistic for you:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... eists.html
(Honestly, I don't know how reliable this is since the banner on top of the site has God shooting DNA at the Earth through his index finger, but they do cite their sources )
Maybe this makes absolutely no difference in someone's belief. I do not know. I can compare two experiences of mine for you, though. One church I went to when I was younger opposed the idea of evolution, one was very open to the idea and believed in it. When they became older, the children I knew from the former church have maintained their religion while those from the latter have either lost it or are very skeptical. Perhaps that means nothing, but there's a possibility it does.
Of course my sole experience is two dimensional and useless by itself. I'd like to hear what you (and others) think to form a more three dimensional view on the issues at hand.

4. Yes, I was wondering if you think that the majority of the population (in your respective country) will be irreligious in the future.

I'm sorry that I haven't addressed everything you said, anything I didn't discuss most likely means I felt that your statement was completely correct and there was no reason to discuss it further.

[JoshuaZ]

This is just a brief summary of the differences between the strands. There are many others as well. The Bible has been heavily edited throughout. In that regard, there's nothing particularly exceptional about the sections in question.

I can't argue with you on the strands you mention But I will investigate. Where did you get your information from - is there a website, or article or something online I can reference?

With editing, I suppose the key question is, to what degree do the edits affect the historicity of what we read today. And how much does it actually matter!

I don't know off the top of my head any good online sources in English on this topic. Richard Friedman has written some good books on the subject. The only online source I'd be really inclined to recommend is James McGrath's blog who writes from the perspective of a more or less liberal Protestant.

As to how much they effect historicity- they do so massively for the miraculous claims. Once one has lots of editing going on, one doesn't even have any substantial guarantee of eye witness testimony (I think this is mildly besides the point because eye witnesses are simply not reliable but that's a separate issue).

[Spacemilk]

the Catholic church holds as doctrine that anyone can find proof of God using reason and reason will never conflict with God's existence

I've read all the proofs, including Aquinas's, and they don't hold up.

But even if they did, that's not the beginning and end of it. Catholicism is not merely what logically follows from the existence of God. Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia on faith:

Cite

(a) The twofold order of knowledge. -- "The Catholic Church", says the Vatican Council, III, iv, "has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation."

...

(d) That such Divine faith is necessary, follows from the fact of Divine revelation. For revelation means that the Supreme Truth has spoken to man and revealed to him truths which are not in themselves evident to the human mind. We must, then, either reject revelation altogether, or accept it by faith; that is, we must submit our intellect to truths which we cannot understand, but which come to us on Divine authority.

It sounds to me a lot like there's something going on here that's not rational belief.

How does this disprove what I said earlier about everyone having axioms? You've only clarified what I said further. All that quote did was say that Catholics get those axioms implanted in them by God. Weird to an outsider, but it's their explanation. They still acknowledge that they're essentially unprovable axioms that they've accepted.

Also why do you disagree with Aquinas, and other proofs of God? <-- mainly for the sake of my own curiosity, I wouldn't say I'm qualified to discuss the subject

[Philwelch]

How does this disprove what I said earlier about everyone having axioms? You've only clarified what I said further. All that quote did was say that Catholics get those axioms implanted in them by God. Weird to an outsider, but it's their explanation. They still acknowledge that they're essentially unprovable axioms that they've accepted.

Speaking for myself, I try to restrict myself to the axioms everyone has. The ones like, "I am capable of perceiving the world", or, "the world is physically consistent from time to time and from place to place". You have these axioms, too. The only difference is, you add on a ton of axioms like "God loves you unconditionally and will elevate you to blissful eternal life if you believe in him", and, "God had a human son, who was also God, and who walked on water, raised the dead, died and was resurrected, and had his life accurately documented in this collection of books recovered from ancient Palestine". Which is weird, because my axioms tend to be universal philosophical principles that are logically necessary for someone to perceive the world and live in it, while your axioms tend to be the exact same principles, plus biographical details about a demigod who lived in Roman-occupied Palestine some 2000 years ago.

Also why do you disagree with Aquinas, and other proofs of God? <-- mainly for the sake of my own curiosity, I wouldn't say I'm qualified to discuss the subject

Because they're logically flawed. I'll get into this later if you'd like but I'm presently in a hurry.

[Spacemilk]

How does this disprove what I said earlier about everyone having axioms? You've only clarified what I said further. All that quote did was say that Catholics get those axioms implanted in them by God. Weird to an outsider, but it's their explanation. They still acknowledge that they're essentially unprovable axioms that they've accepted.

Speaking for myself, I try to restrict myself to the axioms everyone has. The ones like, "I am capable of perceiving the world", or, "the world is physically consistent from time to time and from place to place". You have these axioms, too. The only difference is, you add on a ton of axioms like "God loves you unconditionally and will elevate you to blissful eternal life if you believe in him", and, "God had a human son, who was also God, and who walked on water, raised the dead, died and was resurrected, and had his life accurately documented in this collection of books recovered from ancient Palestine". Which is weird, because my axioms tend to be universal philosophical principles that are logically necessary for someone to perceive the world and live in it, while your axioms tend to be the exact same principles, plus biographical details about a demigod who lived in Roman-occupied Palestine some 2000 years ago.

Yes, and speaking for myself my own axioms don't include things like "everything in the Bible has been accurately documented and can be taken as complete, literal truth" which seems to be a belief you've implied above. There are some Christian fundamentalists who do believe this, though, I will grant you that. Or even "God loves you unconditionally and will elevate you to blissful eternal life if you believe in him" - that's not my axiom and I think even the Catholic church would split hairs with that one (belief =/= love, worship, etc. - but that's sort of off-topic and splitting hairs). If you want to say something like "your axioms" you might want to be a little more general. I know a lot about the Catholic church because I grew up in it, but I never said I was Catholic.

But speaking generally, and not just for myself and yourself, my point was that if you draw a line in the sand with those who identify themselves as "religious" on one side and those who identify themselves as "non-religious" on the other, both sides have a small number of axioms which are assumed to be true. If you ignore the details that religious might have, like "My God died on a cross", etc etc, and just accept that they believe in a higher being (this all gets horribly mucked up with tenets of some forms of Buddhism, but please let's just stay very general for now), then you realize that religious people do have approximately the same number of small axioms. For whatever reason, they may have decided to tack on their own wildly varying, fantastical other axioms, the number and fantasticalness varying from religion to religion, but the same rather goes for non-religious too I think. And even what you may call axioms, such as "God loves you unconditionally", in some cases churches have set out to prove that these are true and are not just axioms. You may disagree with their arguments, but the arguments are sufficient to justify their belief, so where does that leave you and them? In my opinion if you disagree with a religion's proofs, it's very possible that you disagree with their premises, which means you disagree with their axioms. (of course you may simple disagree with the methodology of their logic )

I will grant you this: So far, the non-religious sector has, on average I would say, fewer axioms they've tacked on (that I can personally think of anyway) but this may be because, as was stated in the original thread before it was merge'd, the idea of being non-religious has only become mainstream in the last 100 years or so. Maybe more axioms will get tacked on as time goes on, and maybe this will all turn out to be a massive cycle - in a couple thousand years the religious will be the cynical minority with the non-religious acting as oppressive overlords for a few hundred years.

Also why do you disagree with Aquinas, and other proofs of God? <-- mainly for the sake of my own curiosity, I wouldn't say I'm qualified to discuss the subject

Because they're logically flawed. I'll get into this later if you'd like but I'm presently in a hurry.

Yes plz! Could also possibly be its own thread. (gotta be careful though or we'll get merge'd again)

By logically flawed - ok bear with me, I have not taken a logic class, per se, but I read through an ex's textbooks for his Logic classes, and helped him study for the class, and was generally fascinated by it, but I'm not in any way good at it - do you mean the way he presents his argument, or his jumps between points, or do you disagree with his premises?

[Sparthox]

I know the concept of rationality is very important with a lot of posters here, and I know in the past (think Middle Ages) the Catholic church did a lot of things without a clear rational justification. (or at least not a positive one - I'm discounting reasons like "seizing more power" or "going along with political leanings" and things of that nature) However, in recent years, the Catholic church has made a push to think carefully before they rule on some question of religious beliefs, to think of a rational basis for their ruling. Granted, this reasoning is based on a number of assumptions, or axioms, that the Catholic church has (such as, God exists, Jesus exists and is the Son of God, etc. - the Catholic church may have proofs for this, and I apologize if this is the case because I haven't read them). But they have a rational, logical basis for their decisions (at least, the ones I have read ) that follows logically from the initial axioms, and yes they do consider scientific evidence.

No matter how thoroughly and logically the church makes points or rules on issues, if it makes those points based off of axioms that can't be proven, that's not logic. Would you call me logical if I started a proof with the point that 2=1? The end result doesn't matter if the foundation is flawed.



Edit: St. Thomas Aquinas' proofs.
Proof 1-3: TA proves god's existence by assuming an infinite regress and then saying only god could end it, i.e. something had to move first/something had to cause the first effect/something immaterial must have made the first material thing/etc. The problem here is that TA associates the beliefs of his time with god - that he is invincible, cannot be undone, etc. In this way, the logic isn't sound - if there is infinite regress, what logically makes it stop with god? If one traces effects all the way to nothingness and says that god was the first cause, what proves that? Why not keep going and asking what caused god to pop into existence? Our notion of god as the end of the regress is not logical, like it would be if you had a lego sculpture and deconstructed it until you only had one lego.

Proof 4: "Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest." This is stupid. Something in the universe is the reddest thing imaginable, therefore everything that is red gets its color from this one reddest thing. Makes sense, right?

Proof 5: Intelligent design. See: evolution.