I’d have to agree about the legal system (as well as our political system) being comparable to an “insane cult. Each offers as many lies in their basis and practice as does (so we believe) religion. Perhaps that is the norm for humanity and yes, there are always those who delight and profit by manipulating others as well as those who are apparently willing to be manipulated.
Personally, I’m amused by anyone who “knows” that God is or isn’t either way. Agnostics form the only group holders of “truth” in this matter since even if a hundred people were to testify to having actually been “in the presence of God” (this is really not too difficult to find), where then is the “proof” for any non-beliver? The term “you had to be there” comes to mind and even then not everyone may “feel” what happened.
“God gene” anyone? Would such represent the advance in evolution which allowed civilization to take place and if so, is anyone not having this unit deficient in some way? If such is no longer needed, would having dropped such a gene represent a further advance in evolution? Would there be a replacement of some sort? So what’s the next step up from homo sapiens?
Since matters deemed spiritural preceed even civilization itself, I doubt that its own continuing evolution will evaporate because some people recognize it as only so much insanity. That the many faults of religion are pointed out will be ignored by religious followers just as the great political schism between Democrats and Republicans enables each side to put on blinders regarding the seemingly criminal actions of their own “leaders”. Social structure identity trumps all reason, justifies all the great lies. Utilitarianism ultimately rules.
Q. When does a pebble cast into a pond make no ripples?
Personally, I’m amused by anyone who “knows” that God is or isn’t either way. Agnostics form the only group holders of “truth” in this matter since even if a hundred people were to testify to having actually been “in the presence of God” (this is really not too difficult to find), where then is the “proof” for any non-beliver? The term “you had to be there” comes to mind and even then not everyone may “feel” what happened.
I’m amused, or perhaps bemused, by those who think silly, farcical and fundamentally irrelevant ideas need such serious attention as to create special labels and philosophical exercises to elucidate. In other words, self-identified agnostics, among others. The god notion has the intellectual import of “Big Mama’s House”.
“God gene” anyone? Would such represent the advance in evolution which allowed civilization to take place and if so, is anyone not having this unit deficient in some way? If such is no longer needed, would having dropped such a gene represent a further advance in evolution? Would there be a replacement of some sort? So what’s the next step up from homo sapiens?
There certainly isn’t a god gene, nor is there any one gene for any complex idea or behavior. Religion came with civilization but only at the time and degree of politics, professional frauds like magicians, and other people who figured out how to exploit society so they wouldn’t have to get a real job like the farmers. Society turns on ideas, not genetics. It isn’t old enough for genetics and the evidence of history shows that ideas alone often radically transform societies in the time span of a single generation.
Since matters deemed spiritural preceed even civilization itself, I doubt that its own continuing evolution will evaporate because some people recognize it as only so much insanity. That the many faults of religion are pointed out will be ignored by religious followers just as the great political schism between Democrats and Republicans enables each side to put on blinders regarding the seemingly criminal actions of their own “leaders”. Social structure identity trumps all reason, justifies all the great lies. Utilitarianism ultimately rules.
Except that religion in fact is evaporating. I’d not argue it is because of intellectual dissent.. but whatever the cause religion is fading from every nation on the bleeding edge of socioeconomic development. It represents the past, but nontheism clearly represents the future. Not that there are guarantees of anything in particular.
Utilitarianism would ultimately rule- just as soon as you produce objective units of “good” and “bad” or happiness/suffering by which we can decide what is and is not a utilitarian good.
If social structure identity trumps all reason then why has the Christian church had well over 30,000 schisms? Why has our own political landscape, and every other western nation’s, splintered again and again? Shouldn’t everyone in a given generation mindlessly (reason being trumped) dedicate themselves to whatever social group they find themselves in? If this were the case, then we should have been over-run by the big-family-minded Mormons or catholics decades ago. Instead we see Catholics and Mormons defect at a very high rate, abdicating their “social structure” be deciding they want something else or nothing else.
As to any criticism of God/Jesus being a “poor communicator” what with so many people being kept in the dark, the old Bible story which gives reason why Jesus speaks publicly in parables instead of clear language is given in Mat 13:9-17. One of the many disillusions commonly held is that God has to be fair about anything when the Bible shows otherwise throughout. There is not much pandering going on in the scriptures to account for any continuing popularity, but since they are so seldom actually utilized any more, churches continue to be founded and expand regardless through very much pandering instead.
The fastest growing faith in the world is Islam. They might also be considered by some to be the least tolerant of “non-believers”. Good luck with that.
The fastest growing faith in the world is Islam. They might also be considered by some to be the least tolerant of “non-believers”. Good luck with that.
You know whats growing faster than Islam? nontheism. At least in the long view. According to data from the WCE “The number of nonreligionists…. throughout the 20th century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900,... to 918 million in AD 2000…. “
Almost certainly the nonreligious now number over a billion.
No faith, not Islam by far, has come anywhere near the level of explosive growth (about 28,700%). Nor is any projected to.
There are plenty of “targets” to shoot at within Christianity as well as amost any other form of organized faith, but the problem is with people, not faith per se. Jesus himself reserved his harshest criticism for those who felt themselves “most religious” within his society while pointing out their hypocrisy. ....
2 Corinthians 11:12-15 - There’s a real lesson here.
“Always remember, I am right and everyone else is wrong!”
I really didn’t understand what point you are getting at.
I think the problem is that the Christian God doesn’t exist, and believing in Him only hides the problem.
Are you taking the position that the Christian God exists and are trying to rebut Loftus’ points?
You know whats growing faster than Islam? nontheism. At least in the long view. According to data from the WCE “The number of nonreligionists…. throughout the 20th century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900,... to 918 million in AD 2000…. “
Almost certainly the nonreligious now number over a billion.
No faith, not Islam by far, has come anywhere near the level of explosive growth (about 28,700%). Nor is any projected to.
I wonder if that number, impressive as it is, includes the counting of those in Red China and the former USSR where the state has supressed all forms of religion for many years. It may be that people who give no thought to religion at all actually number well into the billions. Now there’s a comforting thought…
I wonder if that number, impressive as it is, includes the counting of those in Red China and the former USSR where the state has supressed all forms of religion for many years. It may be that people who give no thought to religion at all actually number well into the billions. Now there’s a comforting thought…
Here is what the authors, Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman, said about China:
The Central Kingdom has never been especially religious, became atheistic under communism, and is striving for world dominance via materialistic consumerism. The finding by the Shanghai university poll that religious Chinese lifted from 100 million in the 1960s to 300 million resulted in headlines along the lines of “Poll Finds Surge of Religion Among Chinese.” But the 300 million figure is far below the 600 million religious estimated by the World Christian Encyclopedia, and is less than a third of the adult population. Nor should monotheists be particularly comforted. The survey uncovered 40 million Christians, about half the inflated estimate in the WCE, and just 4% of the adult population. Most religious Chinese are Buddhists and Taoists, or worship the likes of the God of Fortune, the Black Dragon and the Dragon King. By the way, The Economist says women are using religion as a way to battle traditional Chinese patriarchy. If the survey is correct that over two thirds of Chinese are not religious then they may approach a billion in China alone, expanding the global total even further.
So the WCE assumed massive numbers of theists, communism or no. As for Russia, well I don’t know if you have followed events there but the Russian government has cozied up with the Russian Orthodox Church making it a de facto state religion. The state began closing down competing faiths including synagogues and other types of Christian churches. Byzantine requests to hold religious services (in writing) are often required and often rejected for no reason or for “incitement” claims. Russia is heading down a road as dark as the one behind it- but it certainly has not been an enemy of the church in years.. at least not the ROC. Nonetheless metrics seem to show religion struggles in Russian and the religious minority is more nationalistic than devout as the ROC is a symbol of Russian heritage and culture.
As I suspected. It sounds like confusion and/or manipulations are as popular in those parts of the world as everywhere else. Could it be that having too many choices actually inhibits making any choice? I just finished listening to a WNYC Radiolab podcast on “Choice” which points out research in that direction.
Perhaps it is that:
1. People who are born into “the faith of their fathers” will opt out and then have too many choices.
2. People who are born into “not having a faith” might desire one but also have too many choices.
3. The Russians have the idea in that if there is to be religion, take advantage of it to force a homogeneity (the “old school” approach - here is your choice), however,
4. Organizations of almost any nature ultimately become corrupt, create dissent and spawn anew.
5. The world-wide level of (available and recognized) hedonism continues to increase resulting in an increase of those who tend to redefine or skirt altogether any number of classical morality issues as defined in historical mainstream religions (No God wanted, or at least no judgement.) Resulting in…
6. A non-religion or perhaps something “spiritural” where anything goes for purely social purposes as a default choice.
I find the argument by Zuckerman, Paul, and others compelling that economics ends up being the answer to why societies are religious or are not. This seems somehow both more obvious and more strange than more typical explanations. It is the only one I have seen though that is able to resolve certain difficult questions such as why is the US so much like Iran in terms of religion and unlike it in any other way? Also the theory predicts the facts: there isn’t a single overtly religious nation with a high standard of living and moderate distribution of wealth. Not few or just one.. none. What you say here could help explain how you get from A to B of course, why the economics has the effect that it does.
The jury remains out but I find the topic fascinating.
I find the argument by Zuckerman, Paul, and others compelling that economics ends up being the answer to why societies are religious or are not. This seems somehow both more obvious and more strange than more typical explanations. It is the only one I have seen though that is able to resolve certain difficult questions such as why is the US so much like Iran in terms of religion and unlike it in any other way? Also the theory predicts the facts: there isn’t a single overtly religious nation with a high standard of living and moderate distribution of wealth. Not few or just one.. none. What you say here could help explain how you get from A to B of course, why the economics has the effect that it does.
The jury remains out but I find the topic fascinating.
I have not read the arguements mentioned. How do you define an “overtly religious nation” and a “moderate distribution of wealth”. Historically, most nations that have developed a reasonably high standard of living for it’s citizens were at one time deemed somewhat religious and for the most part is seen with Christianity and an element of Judiasm as the major, if not only religions. This accounts for Western Europe and those nation’s former territories including the U.S. By and large the non-Christian nations have been marked by a truly wide disparity between the haves and have-nots excepting the economic boom which benefited Japan’s citizens after WWII. This may not be PC to say, but it is pretty well true.
As to perceptions of a growing change in the relative “religious nature” of any given country, one of the factors I mentioned earlier is a growing populace with hedonistic lifestyles which eschew religious values. This concept and option will only become available to the general public as they can afford same so economics is definitely a factor. It still costs free time, fewer responsibilities (i.e. a breakup of the family)and spending money to “sin” good and properly. In the U.S., the Welfare State was so poorly mismanaged that it seemingly purposefully generated millions of fatherless households whose relationships within their relatively strong churches often provided strong social bonds which would be otherwise lacking. It is not surprising that many of these churches have long preached a “prosperity message” which has only recently seen popularity among the general population.
I fail to recognize how the U.S. and Iran might be alike in terms of either government or religion. In Iran an organization such as CFI could not exist because their government is tightly controlled by a hard line Moslem theocracy. The U.S., on the other hand, has written into it’s laws that there is to be separation of church(es) and State. It might be more correct to state that some of the “fundies” in the U.S. seem to resemble the Taliban.
I have not read the arguements mentioned. How do you define an “overtly religious nation” and a “moderate distribution of wealth”. Historically, most nations that have developed a reasonably high standard of living for it’s citizens were at one time deemed somewhat religious and for the most part is seen with Christianity and an element of Judiasm as the major, if not only religions. This accounts for Western Europe and those nation’s former territories including the U.S. By and large the non-Christian nations have been marked by a truly wide disparity between the haves and have-nots excepting the economic boom which benefited Japan’s citizens after WWII. This may not be PC to say, but it is pretty well true.
I find the particular monotheism highly irrelevant. Christian nations generally also went through lengthy eras of regress in virtually every imaginable way- economic, political, scientific. One can forgive the peoples of Papau New Guinea for their lack of political progress- their history is of a small isolated people with few natural resources. Meanwhile Christian Europe with every kind of advantage boldly marched backward for centuries which we now call the Dark Ages before generating some of history’s most brutal and terrible dictators. Clearly, there is nothing intrinsically helpful about being a christian society. Frequently the theistic element of those societies fought tooth and nail against economic, technological, scientific, moral, and political progress. Humanism might be a better social boon.
Moreover… Jared Diamond’s wonderful synthesis Guns, Germs, and Steel provides the best current explanation for the fates of all of earth’s societies and it has nothing to do with race, religion, or culture.
As to perceptions of a growing change in the relative “religious nature” of any given country, one of the factors I mentioned earlier is a growing populace with hedonistic lifestyles which eschew religious values. This concept and option will only become available to the general public as they can afford same so economics is definitely a factor. It still costs free time, fewer responsibilities (i.e. a breakup of the family)and spending money to “sin” good and properly. In the U.S., the Welfare State was so poorly mismanaged that it seemingly purposefully generated millions of fatherless households whose relationships within their relatively strong churches often provided strong social bonds which would be otherwise lacking. It is not surprising that many of these churches have long preached a “prosperity message” which has only recently seen popularity among the general population.
I am unable to reconcile your reasoning here with the state of affairs in Europe, where I have lived for the past 3 years. Certainly, western Europe is nonreligious.. but they also have rather firm family and community values. They’re socialism isn’t merely an economic descriptor for the role of federal government- they actually care and expect each other to care about their environment and welfare of children and elderly parents. Liberal as we call them, they seem to have the “family values” our conservative christians wail on about- and they have it minus stinky god baggage.
I fail to recognize how the U.S. and Iran might be alike in terms of either government or religion. In Iran an organization such as CFI could not exist because their government is tightly controlled by a hard line Moslem theocracy. The U.S., on the other hand, has written into it’s laws that there is to be separation of church(es) and State. It might be more correct to state that some of the “fundies” in the U.S. seem to resemble the Taliban.
There is no comparison between the governments, and that is kind of the point. We’re a lot closer to Iran, with our very own thought police (FCC), Fundies, and state-sponsored religion (“faith-based initiatives”, unseemly tax breaks to churches, open gov/mil support of Christian bigot groups like BSA etc), Media Moral Hygiene Commission (the MPAA), and laws in at least 6 states the prohibit atheists from one or other public office. We also resemble such countries and diverge from first world nations when you compare rates of violent crime and healthcare. The question is why do we diverge so strongly and basically stand out from the entire western world along these axes? The proposed answer is largely disparity of wealth. All the countries should have nothing in common with but do also have a high disparity of wealth like our own. All the countries with low religion, low violent crime, better healthcare? Low disparity of wealth. All.
This is based on a recent survey of 54,461 Americans. A few snips- Christianity is not losing out to other religions, but primarily to a rejection of religion altogether,...
...The rise in what the survey authors call “nones” is the only trend reflected in every single state in the study, Silk said….
As to the reasons for the economic health and other benefits to Western Civilization which in the past have been seeped in Judeo/Christian values, we shall have to agree to disagree. It is what it is and that was derived from what it has been, not what it’s becoming. Those nations being touted as “better than the U.S.” in so many respects which seemingly have “advanced” beyond the need for religion are currently in a serious decline from all of their socialist engineering. Unfortunately, this is the same direction the U.S. leadership seems intent upon following.
Wasn’t that “enlightened” France where the “poor” were most recently seen rioting and burning in the streets? Where will the mainstream backlash to such violence hit hardest? Just how “wishy-washy” have the British been in continuing to let Moslems take over their country and where do we suppose that will lead. How about the Dutch? No, it seems the “ideals” of Europe have a great many problems we are not talking about here.
Did being a secular state really help the USSR and Red China, etc. treat their own citizens with decency and respect, or were/are those human rights (and millions of lives) which were lost just part of a plan for the broader good? What is the difference in the mindset which makes Sweden, for example, a little better on human rights? Perhaps being part of the larger Porvoo Communion which also bears the representation of numerous other state churches in Europe might provide part of the answer? They all have a Christian heritage and their leaders still hold to that historical accountability whether or not the majority of citizens ever actually show up in church.
