Is religion finally dying?
Well if that is where this is going, I am definitely out. I love too many people that think differently than I do and I refuse to be a part of a conversation where I could not be included. Thanks. It's been fun.
A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. --Arthur C Clarke
I was just trying to see if the first statement was offensive would the second be as well. I find neither offensive as they just seem to just be statements of opinion and not fact and most likely made by slightly looney cranks.
Sorry, CapnMarko, that wasn't directed to you. I was commenting on the thread in general and I think we crossposted last night.
Yeah, same here.
By the way Dave's quote from Clarke may be the truest thing that came up here, and some popes have written as much, too (though they ended up meaning something a bit different).
dave said:
Richard Dawkins reads fan mail. NSFW.
Well, Dr. Dawkins and the cranks who email him deserve each other.
There are those of us who can have an intelligent discussion of religion and science, instead of that nonsense.
CapnMarko said:
I was just trying to see if the first statement was offensive would the second be as well. I find neither offensive as they just seem to just be statements of opinion and not fact and most likely made by slightly looney cranks.
They are both offensive because they attack the sincerity of belief of the respective groups. Each is a characterization by one side of the other side. Instead of attacking the other side they should be explaining their side.
I agree with Lost. It's possible to discuss these issues without belittling each other.
Well, now lost, Peggyc and nohero make this an interesting conversation again. All we need are ridski and tigerLily to join in again. Dave is kinda funny ...but I don't know about his bias. Am I not allowed to be a spiritual Christian? None of my other aethiest friends and family members feel that way. 
As Peggyc suggested, I would like to explain my side. I remember being 5 years old and taken to St Ephranes in bay ridge Brooklyn. I sat next to my mom as the priest in full robe had his back to us. The stained glass windows were streaming with sunshine and Latin was spoken. It was glorious sitting next to mom in this surrounding.
i received first communion 2 years later with the catechism that taught God is Love. I went to confession and the next day holy communion. In a white dress and veil and gloves and white socks and shoes.
These memories and my catechism teaching are what hold me to my faith.
And the teachings of my mom. She had aunts in Ireland that were nuns and she passed on to me to have discernment when it came to the church. Mom never left the church. She was much stronger in her faith of the church than I was. Yet she never criticized my choice. She never complained.
The clincher was when a priest told me my relationship was with God. That was all I needed to hear.
Religion isn't going to "die". As the old saying goes, you can't reason out of a person that which was not reasoned into them in the first place. I consider myself a secular humanist, but I think if we were to all become secular humanists and there was no religion at all the world would be a much less interesting place. For better or for worse, we as a species need to create belief systems. As individuals we don't necessarily need them, but I think as a species in general it helps us to have some supernatural higher being(s) accountable for all the crap we throw and all the crap that lands on us.
It's not incompatible with science, either.
Hah! So true ridski. My children are secular humanists. Yet I was reasoned into a catholic philosophy by my mom. It keeps me connected to her and I enjoy it very much. My children do not complain. Almost 68 years with my faith and I enjoy it.
My daughter does enjoy Buddhism. My eldest son just enjoys life. My youngest son has a connection with dolpins so I don't know, Spiritualism?
That part of it is not incompatible to science. I NEVER found my belief system to be incompatible with science. I can look out my window, hear the glorious birds, see the sunshine and of course, due to my beliefs, say thank you God with a grateful heart and a big smile on my face.
I've enjoyed this thread.
I grew up in an atheist family and felt uncomfortable in and around religion. My view changed as a result of being a choral singer and performing a great number of religious works. Often, I find them to be beautiful without agreeing with the text.
Eventually, I found myself comfortable in religious settings, and since religion wasn't crammed down my throat, not by a long shot, I was free to participate wherever and however I liked. I started in a Muslim fellowship. When we lived in NJ, we joined a synagogue because one of my daughters wanted to go through the whole bat mitzvah thing, and that was cool with us. I've sung in many church services. I've prayed in mosques and meditated in a Buddhist temple.
For me, religion offers poetry of many sorts. The psalms are particularly intriguing to me. There is tons of evidence of doubt of the existence of God. There is wavering. There is imploring of God to show himself. Psalm 13 is a prime example.
So to me, the depiction of God in prayers and scripture is of the god I would believe in when and if I believed in God. And I do, sometimes, but only for fleeting moments.
I recited this at the funeral of my good friend's mother. In reciting it, I cried and nearly lost control.
1 How long, Lord? Will you forget me forever?
How long will you hide your face from me?
2 How long must I wrestle with my thoughts
and day after day have sorrow in my heart?
How long will my enemy triumph over me?
3 Look on me and answer, Lord my God.
Give light to my eyes, or I will sleep in death,
4 and my enemy will say, “I have overcome him,”
and my foes will rejoice when I fall.
5 But I trust in your unfailing love;
my heart rejoices in your salvation.
6 I will sing the Lord’s praise,
for he has been good to me.
That is so beautiful Tom and heart wrenching. Thank you for sharing.
I think why I experience God more often is because it was such a big part of my Mom's being. The statue of Mary in her garden where she took solitude to read her books. The statue of Mary over the kitchen sink as she washed dishes. We were always invited to go to church every Sunday with her and she never missed a Sunday in her life! I know she believed in Jesus, Mary and Joseph because she called on them often. We never used the envelopes provided by the church because she was against that. We always threw our offerings into the basket unanimously. Dad never went to church with us but sat in the first pew in St. Francis De Sales for Mom's funeral. It is strange how her love of the church had us all respect her beliefs so much.
Haha! Please don't take offense tigerLily yet this is exactly the same as my 47 year old son's explanation to me. He has no need to feel loved outside of what life offers him - even going through treatment of his multiple myeloma. Maybe I'm a mamma's girl and because she believed, I do too. Nah , I still feel my belief very strongly.
My takeaway is everyone is different and try as we might, I have no clue as to why I believe and you and my son don't. I do know he is very happy this way as I am certain you are as well.
I was fortunate to be raised in two religions. One was simply at the knee of a kind and loving grandmother. The other as a result of a promise . My father, marrying a woman out of his faith and the promise that any children born of the marriage would be raised in that faith . Thus my sister and I were raised ..........with the many rules and regulations it involved.
Upon reaching our early teens we were allowed to make our own choices. My sister dropped all pretenses and eventually married a fellow who felt the same way. Their back ground faiths could not be any more different. They raised their two girls with Menorahs and Christmas trees in the home. You could not find a happier family
And me...................practicing only a minimum of the ritual but always remembering the supreme love. The most simple of thoughts............God is and God loves you. I have experienced four near death episodes in my life.......but fear never dared
enter the room.
Tom, you and I seem to have similar approaches to religion, although I have not had as broad an experience of them as you. I was raised Lutheran because my parents felt it was essential for my brother and me to have a grounding in some system of ethics. Mom was raised Lutheran, Dad Methodist. I suspect they tossed a coin when the time came to pick one for my brother and me.
Religion never played a large role in our lives, although my family always adored Christmas, and I have never experienced strong belief or faith. But, like Tom, I have always found religious music/literature/poetry extraordinarily moving. I think some of the most wonderful music ever written has been religious in nature.
oneofthegirls said:
My daughter does enjoy Buddhism. My eldest son just enjoys life. My youngest son has a connection with dolpins so I don't know, Spiritualism?
This made me think hard... and I wonder if what is happening in religion now is a development much like what gave rise to schisms in Christianity during the Renaissance. When people began to splinter off from Catholicism into various branches of Protestantism, what seemed to me to be at the base of the movement was the need for a personal relationship with God. People didn't want a priest standing up in front of them, spouting scripture in a language they didn't understand, telling them what to do and how to feel, and especially how to relate to God. Hence the strong desire for a Bible in English, church services in English, and the removal of the rood screen that separated church-goers from the altar. People wanted to approach God directly and have control over their experience of him/her. When I was in college I was fascinated by medieval women mystics who had ecstatic visions of Christ, many of which were, frankly, quite sexual in nature. They sought a true intimacy with their God. Bride of Christ in every sense of the word.
Now, it appears to me that many young people are once again rebelling against what organized religion tells them to think and believe, and perhaps that is why so many people now self-identify as "spiritual" without being willing to commit to a religious organization. They want to remove that layer of someone else telling them how to relate to a higher being.
All just guesswork, but the kind of thing that interests me. I recall being deeply resentful when someone told me a few years back that I should not sing in a church choir if I didn't have faith. Even Mother Theresa suffered a deep crisis of faith in her later years, and she simply kept going through the movements, hoping her belief would return. Belief has never visited me, but I have always been fascinated by the study of religion and moved by a wistful envy of those who have faith. I suspect I am by nature too analytical for faith to be possible.
And, like many others, I am offended when someone attempts to shove their beliefs or practices down my throat.
I come to this from two perspectives: first, a lifelong Catholic who after real periods of questioning ultimately became more convicted through further study; and second, a historian of religion and politics (two sides of one coin in my period), which is the perspective I usually present in this forum. Well, there's a third, "smartass," but that pervades everything (bless me, Father).
The presumption that began this thread, which I questioned at the beginning, was that increased rationalism would lead to more and more departure from all religions, until we end up in a--pardon the snark--Gene Roddenberryesque world in which everybody lives in perfect harmony based on reason. But I really don't think that society will go that route, certainly not as a whole, and the persistence of genuine believers who do what they do because of their genuine belief in the divine, however defined, will continue to challenge non-theistic assumptions about the world. This need not be "shoving beliefs down another's throat," which is unfortunately all too common; but ideally it can take place as real, intelligent discussions about the nature of what is beyond us. Theists and atheists should be able to explain why they take their position, each of which would imply, yes, that the other would be wrong, and one shouldn't have to fear saying so; but history shows that neither of these is especially self-evident. Religion and the lack of religion are each metaphysical choices made on an individual level that ultimately cannot be proven. A comment was made above that appears to have been removed, to the effect that there had been a personal realization that there was no god. But people brought up in no faith at all have also come to an adult realization that there most definitely is. I don't see this possibility for movement in various directions, and even at multiple points in life, going away. Judging from the later comments here, it seems that most others don't, either. As my mama always said, we're all on a journey. It's hard to say where it will go.
So, to look back at the Pew findings, and to complicate them from my Catholic perspective: The presumption that "millennials" (and I'm on the upper end of them) are leaving organized religion in droves is true in general, but I contend, as have other critics of the survey, that those who are leaving frequently were not especially involved in the first place, or had parents who did not push it, or pushed it too much. There's every possible variety here, for every possible reason, and I know personally those who had limited foundation and then rediscovered it, those raised in it who embraced it with love, and those who had solid foundations but chose to leave. And within the same family. But in many of these cases, those who left were not "engaged," or it was something they just "did," or it was a cultural context that they grew up in, like "Irish Catholic." But there are also those who return--not as many, and I think the future of Christianity will be quite different from its recent past--who are actually quite committed to the Church and its teachings and have chosen to study and understand them more than those who had just been filling the pews but uninterested or unsatisfied. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to presume that nobody will return once they've read enough books. There's evidence of every possible outcome.
So, PeggyC, this would fit with your suggestions about the importance of that personal relationship, dating back to the Reformation. Within Catholicism, there has been an awakening of late that a personal relationship is quite possible within that sacramental framework; but as you noted, even in the medieval Church there were mystics pushing the Church in that direction. Others did in the Reformation and post-Reformation periods. I could go on but I've got a major writing deadline on a subject that is actually quite related to all this, but I'll have to save it. This thread has certainly been interesting and thought-provoking. If I had to sum all this up in an answer to the OP, I think the array of comments coupled with other evidence would have to suggest "no." At least, not any time soon.
It's interesting to note that the argument about whether "religion is dying" dates back to much, much earlier eras. For instance, when science began to find new ways of explaining the natural world, scientists and secular philosophers began arguing with the church hierarchy as to whether science and religion are unalterably opposed and mutually exclusive concepts. Much has been said on both sides over the centuries, but many have equally argued that the two can co-exist without having to declare one or other a "winner."
The debate is an honorable one, as long as it's kept civil. Honestly, the only thing I would change in the thread title is the word "finally." That implies that the OP has been waiting for the demise of religion with 'bated breath. That kind of antagonism is surely unnecessary? Similarly, I would love to see an open exchange of ideas without proselytizing, if possible. It's a fascinating subject. SouthernBaron, any chance some of us might get to see what you write?
My honors thesis when I graduated from college was "Disorderly Women," about the women of 17th century England who began preaching and publishing their thoughts on faith and religion despite all efforts to suppress them. There were more of them than you might think, and their stories amazed me.
Well, this IS the soapbox. My personal view is that our society would be better off without religion. Hence the "finally." I certainly don't expect everyone to agree.
The modern atheist does not disbelieve because of his intellect, but because of his will; it is not knowledge that makes him an atheist…The denial of God springs from a man’s desire not to have a God—from his wish that there were no Justice behind the universe, so that his injustices would fear not retribution; from his desire that there be no Law, so that he may not be judged by it; from his wish that there were no Absolute Goodness, that he might go on sinning with impunity.
The modern religious or spiritual but not religious person does not believe because of their religious convictions, but because of their fear; it is not faith that makes them religious (or spiritual but not religious) ... The belief in god springs from a man's desire to have a god - from his wish that there was some Justice behind the universe, so that the senselessness and randomness of the world were explainable; from his desire to force order and control on chaos without responsibility, so that he may not be held irresponsible; from his wish that when confronted with man's inhumanity to man, the fearful power and uncontrollability of nature that a belief in Absolute Goodness would abdicate his culpability for his ongoing sins against others and nature because god and he can go on sinning because redemption and forgiveness.