|
Post by Nicole on Apr 29, 2004 14:37:02 GMT -5
It is definitely cultural - Americans are very religious. However, there are only a few European countries that fit the 'secularization model' (Britain, Netherlands, Norway, Czech Republic). Surprisingly, all the others show an increase in religious belief - something you wouldn't expect.
I just read a book on this: Religion in Europe at the End of the Second Millennium by Andrew M. Greeley.
|
|
|
Post by Alecto on Apr 29, 2004 15:18:40 GMT -5
I heard that there are also more Atheists in Australia.
Of course some of the Atheists in America might still be "In the closet" regarding their religion, the way that I am
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Apr 29, 2004 15:46:56 GMT -5
Nicole, when you say that Western countries are getting more religious, how long is your time frame? Is the U.S. more religious than it was in 1900?
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Apr 29, 2004 21:51:08 GMT -5
I didn't say the U.S. was getting more religious.
I said that European countries (excepting the few that I listed above and one that I forgot - Eastern Germany) were getting more religious. I know that goes against "common sense," but that's what Greeley's book was trying to show. He argues that there has been an increase in religious belief in Europe in the last few decades. I wasn't that fond of the book, to be honest, but his statistics seem accurate.
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Apr 29, 2004 22:49:51 GMT -5
What about France? According to the Wikipedia article.... I don't know what the atheist percentage was in previous years, but if it was substantially higher than 41%, I'd be amazed. I am amazed already at 41%. I am not surprised that many former Soviet Bloc countries are becoming more religious. Communists were hostile to religion, so now that they are out of power, there is renewed interest.
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Apr 30, 2004 10:14:34 GMT -5
France was "the Catholic exception." Catholicism was extremely polarized there for two full centuries (since the French Revolution). The industrial working class was drawn to socialism very quickly, and the middle class was lost due to monarchic-cause reactionaries. Today, there's virtually no respect left for the Church there.
Yeah, but Greeley is saying it isn't as simple as that because most countries show an increase in faith, not just formerly communist ones.
While most people would attribute it to secularization and the rise of science, he says that there has been a U-curve instead. Belief was high before the World Wars, then there was a drop, and now belief is rising to previous pre-War levels. The only countries that really fit the secularization model are Britain and the Netherlands (what he refers to as "Orange Exceptionalism"). [There are other reasons for decreased belief in countries like France and E. Germany.]
This ins't really my kind of thing, though. Statistics bore me and the book bored me. (It was required for a class.) I couldn't care less how many people believe in God in a specific country. Additionally, religion is much more complex to me and can't be contained within a sociological survey. (Although I do see its practical uses, I suppose.)
For example, one of the questions on his survey related to belief in God is:
***********************
Please indicate which statement below comes closest to expressing what you believe about God.
I don't believe in God..........................................1
I don't know whether there is a God and I don't believe there is any way to find out................................................................2
I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind..........3
I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others.................................................4
While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God..................................................................5
I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it................................................................6
*****************************
I fit into none of those categories! And I consider myself "religious"! And an atheist! Religion is too complex an issue for me, and attempts to confine it to statistical surveys and percentages really don't hold my interest. Just not my thing.
|
|
|
Post by spitzig on May 11, 2004 12:02:25 GMT -5
Someone mentioned Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy. It suggests only two possibilities and asks for a choice between them. There are more possibilities than just "atheist--no afterlife or Christian Hell" and "Christian-- no afterlife or Christian Heaven". As South Park said "Yes, the Mormons were right. The Mormons." Or pick some other religion. Maybe even a religion that's only been held by one person. More people believing in something doesn't mean it's more accurate, if there is no evidence for it. Maybe the "right god" doesn't mind being ignored but gets REALLY pissed off when people pray to another one. I am just showing how looking at religions from a logical standpoint(this is True; you must believe This...) isn't very logical. It's like someone pointing at the moon and everyone looks at their finger(or, worse, kill each over about what the finger looks like). Religion CAN help people, though. It's a strong psychological force. Distrusting authority, though, I tend to like more unorganized religion. Like Buddhism--take what works for you, ditch the rest.
Religion Studies is for atheists? My main prof for religion classes as an undergrad was a Presbyterian minister.
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on May 12, 2004 22:24:42 GMT -5
The faculty in our Religious Studies Department is mostly Christian (although some of them have very, very liberal interpretations of their faith) and Jewish. We also have one Muslim, one atheist, and another that I'm not sure what he believes personally but he teaches Zen Buddhism.
The graduate students, however, are an eclectic mix: off the top of my head, I can think of one Catholic, one Protestant, two Muslims, three pagans, someone that is somewhat Catholic and somewhat Buddhist, and then me. And I consider myself basically uncategorizable.
I think many people become confused about Religious Studies Departments, though, because they think that their purpose is to instruct students in a particular faith. It has nothing to do with being religious; it's simply the academic study of religion. You can believe anything you like.
Oh, and I agree completely with Spitzig's pronouncement of Pascale's wager as a false dichotomy. Definitely.
|
|
|
Post by Evarie Fayore on Jun 4, 2004 10:41:23 GMT -5
Firstly, I have to be honest. I don’t know a lot about religion so don’t mind me if my post isn’t up to the intellectual standard of some of the other posts on this thread. Having said that, this post is mostly about some of my perceptions and beliefs regarding religion.
I consider myself to be an atheist but I do believe in God (I didn’t always though). Alecto, I think you’re right about there being more atheists in Australia since religion doesn’t seem to be such a big deal over here, and being an atheist doesn’t subject you to stigmatisation of any sort. I think that most religions started out with good intensions and the majority of religious folk imho are genuinely good people, but it’s the extremists you should watch out for. They usually find a way to contort their beliefs to justify their actions (eg. Terrorism) and are so closed minded that they believe that theirs is the one true religion and whoever doesn’t agree with their ideals is destined to go to hell.
I don’t think there is one right religion, but rather different religions to suit different people. I said before that I considered myself to be an atheist, but it would be more accurate to say that I have “borrowed” different principles from a range of different religions and fused them together along with my own philosophical thinking to form a set of beliefs that suit me and only me. I believe in God, albeit a benevolent and “passive” God. By “passive” I mean that I believe God is a spectator and merely watches over us and isn’t responsible for all the evils in the world. He doesn’t punish bad and reward good (well, He might sometimes…. but rarely). I was brought up to believe in God but when I was about 9 or 10 I began to question His existence –my “scientific phase” – but as I progressed through my teens I gradually adopted a more mystical-philosophical approach. I realized that science couldn’t explain everything and became rather dissatisfied with the whole “if it can’t be proven, it doesn’t exist” ideology. I thought back to my childhood when I did believe in God and of two instances of when I preyed to Him and my prayers were answered (they were very silly, minor prayers, mind you). After I remembered those instances, I couldn’t believe in my heart that there wasn’t a God watching over us all. Maybe it’s a comfort thing, I don’t know but, that is just what I believe and I have no problem with people believing in whatever they want.
I think it’s good that you guys questioned your religion rather than blindly following what other people have told you to believe. Religion should be a personal choice and not something you’re born into, and should you decide not to follow a religion, that’s alright too. Oh, I also believe in reincarnation and other supernatural occurrences.
|
|
|
Post by Hermit on Jun 4, 2004 11:27:19 GMT -5
Hi folks.. Boy, i don't even know where to begin with this topic. For myself, having been raised by a mother who was brought up as a Catholic (not a strict one- she hasn't been to church in years) I was pretty much forced to go to church as a child, and at first i went to a Catholic school as well. It didn't work out though, by the time i was 5 my folks had gotten me out of there (i don't even remember the circumstances) They still made me go to church, even though both my parents no longer went. My mom's mom was a devout Lutheran- why my mom and grandma went to different churches, i have no idea.. maybe her dad was Catholic- he died before i was born, and i've never asked about it. Anyway, i went to church with my grandma (and then my great aunt after grandma died) I never enjoyed it- it wasn't the subject matter so much as the fact that i was a boy stuck spending his off-school time stuck in a church! I kept going to church until my Catechism (sp?) where they make you a full member of the congregation- around the time i was in the eighth grade in school. After that i avoided it like the plague. My folks and my aunt tried to get me to keep going but it wasn't going to happen. In my mind, in the beginning- i pretty much took it that God existed as fact, or at least i had few doubts. How could all the grownups be wrong? Long since then, my faith has crumbled quite a bit.. I still believe that *something* formed our universe and more specifically our existance as a thinking-feeling race (no other animal in our world comes close to our level). However as for the Bible- much of what it has to say is either contadictory, or has been proven false by science.. but even that isn't what caused me to lose faith in it's writing. It's the simple fact that it was written by *people*.. I have no problem in believing in a God. Believing in people is a much different story. How can i have faith in the writing of some dudes from 2000 years ago?? What point do i have to add? maybe none. But it surprises me how deeply shocked i am by those of you who so fiercely label yourselves as athiests.. -i mean worldwide- i'm not just picking on those of you who feel this Doubts are natural, but are you really so quick to write off even the possibility of a God? Surely the Universe couldn't have simply *poofed* out of nowhere.. I don't subscribe to the Big bang theory- and even if it did happen that way- there had to be some kind of existance in which a big bang could even take place.. ( i mean who lit the firecraker?) At the very least, the unexplainable nature of our existance allows for the possibility of God.
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Jun 4, 2004 13:33:15 GMT -5
But it surprises me how deeply shocked i am by those of you who so fiercely label yourselves as athiests.. -i mean worldwide- i'm not just picking on those of you who feel this Doubts are natural, but are you really so quick to write off even the possibility of a God? Surely the Universe couldn't have simply *poofed* out of nowhere.. I don't subscribe to the Big bang theory- and even if it did happen that way- there had to be some kind of existance in which a big bang could even take place.. ( i mean who lit the firecraker?) At the very least, the unexplainable nature of our existance allows for the possibility of God. I don't write off the possibility that I am a brain in a vat and alone in the universe. However, I have no evidence for that, so it seems highly unlikely. Same with God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I am not a physicist. My understanding of the Big Bang and other cosmological topics is superficial at best. I do understand how peer review in science works. Scientists have incentives to argue with each other. Publishing in peer-reviewed journals requires an original contribution -- the more original the contribution, the larger the potential impact. I don't think it's a coincidence that astrophysicists and evolutionary biologists are not making Creationist arguments. The Big Bang and evolution explain a wide array of observations in ways that make those fields more coherent and better able to generate productive hypotheses. For both the Big Bang and evolution, there are scientific controversies on issues that would seem like nitpicking to us, but the basics were well established a long time ago. Other theories will come along and build on top of them, but Creationism has no credibility in the scientific community. Some scientists believe in Creation, but that is in spite of their professional knowledge, not because of it.
|
|
|
Post by Hermit on Jun 4, 2004 14:09:03 GMT -5
Hi Sushiboat, I'm aware that the scientific community has taken both the big bang and evolution as fairly well proven facts, and i won't even try to dispute their findings, as my knowlege of such things is probably even less than what you claim to have. With evolution (of which i have at least a basic understanding) the evidence seems pretty hard to refute. My standing is that it doesn't mean that evolution wasn't orchestrated by a higher power. The big bang stuff, i can only remember bits and pieces of the actual science involved- i just know that the claim is that the universe supposedly came about in a big explosion. My problem with this theory is not necessarily that it happened- just the idea that there was *nothing* before this bang.. So what is the scientific theory on what there was before this bang? how did existance form out of pure nothingness? Kinda like the chicken and the egg dilemma.. It just seems very paradoxical to me without some form of higher power that cannot be explained scientifically. btw- If i have come across as offensive or beligerant, i sincerely appologize.. I certainly don't have any answers, only questions and doubts.. I respect everyone's opinions and don't think any less of those with conflicting ones.
|
|
|
Post by spitzig on Jun 5, 2004 3:12:22 GMT -5
"Atheist" does not just mean "belief in no god(s)". It also means "no belief in god(s)". This is the definition that most atheists refer to. This definition also tends to include within it, the definition of agnostic. Of course, definitions vary, and I've seen sets of definitions that would leave people not defined as theist, agnostic, OR atheist. Whatever, it's only a label.
Personally, when I was a kid, and saw the stuff in church wasn't very logical, I saw the option of believing that stuff was true or not. I didn't learn about OTHER religions/theologies/possibilities in church. So, I just rejected ALL of it. This meant I was a Strong Atheist, and believed that there were no god(s). Now, I'm an agnostic/atheist.
I have very minimal knowledge of quantum physics, but I know there are theories that "something CAN come from nothing".
Suggesting that the universe could not exist without god(s) merely pushes the question back. How did god(s) come into existence. The usual response is that God always existed, but one could say the same about the universe(or the multiverse where the Big Bang(s) happened, or whatever).
|
|
|
Post by CaryGrant on Jun 7, 2004 9:40:44 GMT -5
Well, spitzig took the words out of my mouth about who created god/universe.
I used to be an atheist, but am now agnostic, meaning I don't know if there is a god, and I don't see that it matters. Either way, morality and happiness are up to you.
|
|
|
Post by canisay182 on Jun 7, 2004 17:40:22 GMT -5
first of all guys, thanks for all the responses! i was happily suprised with the discussion that came out of this. about the true definition of atheist, it is just a person who doesn't believe in god or gods, but an atheist can believe many different things, although we all share that we dont believe in god or gods. personally, im a mostly a mix of an atheist and a buddist. i believe in reincarnation and that poeple have souls. Hermit, yes, people do "fiercely" label themselves as atheists, but, other than not believing in god, many of our beliefs our different. i also think that people should be able to discuss their religion with pride at the right times with out belittling anyone elses beliefs, no matter what the religion. Evarie, I agree with you that people should question religion and i was really happy that someone mentioned that. dont just blindly follow what everyone esle believes, find what you believe. thaks guys, it was fun reading everyones opinions on this. Whether or not your an atheist or a christian or anything else, be openminded and try to teach others to do the same. im really proud of how openminded most of you are. ok that sounded stupid, but im not going to erase it because its true.
|
|