Is Religion Dying?

Two people sent me links to two different pieces that I realized, when I had a chance to look at them, related quite closely to one another.

Dr. A.C. Grayling claims on Australian TV that religion is dying, and one piece of evidence he cites is the growing lack of interest in religion among young people indicated in polls. 

The Christian Post reports that the majority of people in their 20s who identified themselves as having no religion aren't necessarily atheists, they describe themselves as skeptical about religion.  A different poll last year implied that the increase in those without religion was an increase in atheism, but the details actually showed they simply had no religion.  This current poll shows that "American Nones embrace philosophical and theological beliefs that reflect skepticism rather than overt antagonism toward religion." 

Some polls indicate that the number of young people claiming no religion is going up.  But from data in polling done over time, it appears that many of these people come back to religion - Christians to church - as they grow a bit older, settle down, get married and raise families. 

So claims that religion is dying and the number of atheists is growing just aren't borne out by the polling data.  However, the religious attitudes indicated by the polls should motivate us to take our rolls as ambassadors for Christ very seriously and vigorously.  This poll shows that the "nones" aren't hostile to religion, which is an opportunity.  They  have questions and different convictions, and Christian, well-equipped, can answer those challenges.  And it's much better to help young people hold onto Christian convictions throughout their youth by helping them form a robust Christian worldview than to hope they come back eventually.

The polls aren't good news for religion or Christianity; but they are not harbingers of the demise of Christianity and the rise of atheism as some claim.

Comments

[Societyvs]

I don't know if religion is dying - it's taken a hit though in the past 15 years.

[kpolo]

If your viewpoint is restricted to the western world, then perhaps religion (or more specifically Christianity) is dying.

But in the traditional unreached part of the world (4 billion who have never heard the gospel and 2 billion who don't have any missionary to give them the gospel), it is spreading like wildfire.

Besides, the growth or recession of Christianity does not increase/decrease its truthfulness. Remember, in Noah's day, there was only Noah and his family who were "Christian" !!!

[Human Ape]

The 9/11 attacks, and the out-of-control religious insanity since then, is a good reason to be glad religions are going extinct.

[dean09]

Say do any of you atheists want to give the top evidences and arguments for your atheism?

[Alf]

Dean09

Atheists don't need to do that because they aren't making any claims. So what atheists do is just say that the 'evidence' that theists have is poor to non-existent and thus that the theist justification of the deity hypothesis is absent.

Theists never provide 'top evidences and arguments' for their assertion, so why should I agree with it?

Alf

[btmbo]

Alf said:

"atheists ... say that the evidence ... is poor to non-existent."

Sounds like a claim to me.

Care to support it?

[Alf]

btmbo

Nice try. But in refuting your argument without making any other claims, one is entitled to dispute the evidence you put forward to support YOUR assertion.

So if you tell me why you believe in a deity(ies)then Ill subject your evidence to scrutiny.

Alf

[btmbo]

Please note your posts were before mine. I'm only responding to statements (a.k.a., claims) you've made in this thread, and simply ask you to justify your statements (a.k.a., claims). It is wholly disingenuous for atheists (or anyone for that matter) to deny they make claims regarding the existence of God.

'The need for atheists to support their claims' and 'Evidence for God' are 2 different issues. Your initial posts pertain to the former; then you pivot to the latter.

This site is replete with discussion of the evidences, and I would point you to this, this, this, this, this, and this as examples. There are many others.

[Arun]

Its good to know Christ is coming back soon

[EJ]

btmbo

"'The need for atheists to support their claims' and 'Evidence for God' are 2 different issues. Your initial posts pertain to the former; then you pivot to the latter."

Utterly disingenuous. Atheists are not making any claims about god(s). Therefore atheists have no need to support their claims. Its really simple.

Now, godists are making claims. They presumably have evidence to back up these claims. So if I then say - "I dispute your evidence" as discourse allows, I am making claims that go to YOUR pivotal claim. It doesnt matter 2 figs what my position is. Its aboslutely correct that I cant just throw stones, drive by fashion, saying 'your evidence is rubbish', and expect that to stand as a reasonable rebuttal. But what is the case is that THE ONLY claims that I have to back up are those that critique your claims. So the 2 issues are ABSOLUTELY linked.

*Sheesh*. Is it really that complicated? I don't suspect you will have got it even now.

[Alf]

btmbo

Atheism is not a position of truth. It's the withholding of belief, nothing more.

You say 'G because of evidences w,e,r,t,y"

I am saying that I disagree with your evidences. That claim I will support all day long. So Im not making any truth claims. Im saying you are wrong and I withhold belief in your deity(ies) thanks.

Alf

[btmbo]

Alf said:

Atheism is not a position of truth.

I agree with this claim. ;)

[Outsider]

One of btmbo's 'evidence links' above points to a "Pascal's wager" type of argument, i.e. non-Christians should choose to believe in case they are wrong about the whole hell thing.

My question to the Christians is: what do YOU think "believe" means?

Let's say you were threatened with hell because you didn't believe, say, OJ Simpson was innocent, or that Houdini really cut a woman in half and put her back together again. Even though you admit there is a non-zero chance that you could be wrong, would you be capable of actually changing your belief by sheer will?

[Louis Kuhelj]

"Alf said:

Atheism is not a position of truth.

I agree with this claim. ;)"

If Atheism is not a position of truth, then it must be it's opposite. That does not bode well for Atheism.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Outsider

"My question to the Christians is: what do YOU think "believe" means?"

A bit loaded question. It is ambiguous as it may mean just intellectual assent. It could mean trust or affirmation.

The best description of faith was given once in a story about a wire walker over Niagara falls with a wheelbarrow that had an assistant in it. If the wire walker asked you "Do you believe that I can walk across Niagara falls on that wire with my assistant in the wheelbarrow?" Let's say you say yes. The wire walkers response would be..."Ok. Then get in the wheelbarrow." Faith to a Christian is getting in the wheelbarrow...if you know what I mean.

Does that help?

[Louis Kuhelj]

I should point out that the above depiction is not a blind leap of faith, it is based on clear evidence that the wire walker had done this many times before and has the ability to do it again. It is not a description of a decision made on the bass of blind faith, but on the basis of historical evidence.

[Alf]

Atheism is neither true nor untrue, and nor does it claim to be. It comes back to the rigorous definition of atheism, which describes the absence of a single belief. I do hope that some of the credulous actually absorb this fact.

Your wire walker definition of 'faith' above. Oh dear. What you describe is inductive knowledge. You have some evidence of past performance on which to inform your decision to get into the wheelbarrow in lieu of the assistant.

Its transparent that you use an extremely dangerous scenario.

[Outsider]

Louis-
I think I'm with Alf in wondering if the analogy you give fits well with what Christianity asks people to do.

In any event, wouldn't what you describe be "phase 2" AFTER intellectual assent? I used the examples of OJ Simpson's innocence and Houdini's miracles because those are comparable to how Christian claims look to skeptics (at best).

I'm curious if there is something to the Christian definition of "believe" that does not entail the meaning, "I really think this is true, with 99% confidence".

Or do Christians have the ability to honestly "choose to believe" a claim in spite of how dubious it appears to them?

[Alf]

"Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.""

Does the wire walker example REALLY fit with this definition of biblical faith that is always thrown at me?

Alf

[btmbo]

Not sure about "throwing", but some food for thought related to being "certain" about "what we do not see":

- I do not directly observe the immaterial entity called 'time', yet I am certain it exists. Are you?

- I do not directly observe the immaterial entities collectively called 'the laws of logic', yet I am certain they exist. Are you?

- I do not directly observe immaterial mathematical entities, e.g. 'the number 1', yet I am certain they exist. Are you?

[Sam]

Alf, you say that atheism is the lack of belief that God (or gods) exist, and you said that you withhold belief in btmbo's deity. I'm just curious if you also withhold belief that btmbo's deity does NOT exist. Do you lack any belief that God does NOT exist? Or do you have an opinion on the matter?

[David Hawkins]

In the blog post "Unbelievable Unbelief" I posted a portion of an Associated Press article about some physicists who seem to have a lot of belief, but are not sure if what they believe in exists.

Examples:

""The Higgs particle is not easy to find," Heuer said. "We know everything about the Higgs particle, except if it exists."

"Theorized by scientists who couldn't understand missing mass and strangely bent light in faraway galaxies, dark matter has become widely accepted in the physics community without its existence ever being concretely proven."

"These invisible substances cannot be seen through telescopes or advanced instruments. And they are separate from everything we see in the universe - ourselves, objects on this Earth, the planets, the stars and the galaxies - which account for a small fraction of all matter."

Is this "justified" belief?

My limited experience has found a variety of views that arise from self-proclaimed athiests. I would venture to say their are several "camps."

1. "There is no god."

2. "I do not believe there is a god.

3. "If god is real, I certainly wouldn't worship him."

4. "There is no evidence that there is a god."

It appears to me 2 thru 4 are a bit lacking in terms of an all out commitment to the idea of no-god.

However, number 1 is put forth as a statement of absolution...

(1) is a claim.

(The fact that it is in the negative does not matter...yet this is often cited as justification to avoid support.)

(Sidebar: I'm not asking for evidence that God does not exist.)

But number 1 is a claim.

The only neutral position is silence.

One could say "I don't know, maybe" but that's not geniune athiesm.

Unlike Christianity, athiesm is not a worldview one has to experience or embrace to understand. (Many times - in my view - its perspectives are as convuluted as denominationalism.)

[Louis Kuhelj]

outsider

"In any event, wouldn't what you describe be "phase 2" AFTER intellectual assent? "

No. Intellectual assent is the same thing that is described as the devil having. Such faith is not adequate. The kind that Christianity describes is as different as silicon vs. carbon based life forms. You can't get from one to the other.