[Bobboau]

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0316/100316-American-devotion-to-religion-is-waning

[FrikgFeek]

45% for people aged 18-30 is still a massive number though.

[rubixcube]

45% for people aged 18-30 is still a massive number though.

But it's much less than it used to be, and with luck, it should keep shrinking

[Galemp]

Do you believe that piety or orthodoxy has anything to do with religious devotion in this place? Do you think that's the Gospel they're pandering to now?

[Scotty]

45% for people aged 18-30 is still a massive number though.

But it's much less than it used to be, and with luck, it should keep shrinking

The presence or absence of devotion to religion is not a problem in either direction.  The idea that it is somehow to blame for anything (or that its reduction is something to be desired) miss the point.  It may be more frequently used as a tool for rhetoric and demagogues, but I think it's fairly evident that it's not the only thing (or even the worst.  Thank you, Mr. Trump, for proving that at least) that stirs violent passions.

[Dragon]

I think that reduction in devotion to religion is a very good thing. The problem with religion is that it mandates belief in very much unproven worldviews, some of them rather absurd (for example, much of creationism comes from a literal interpretation of the Bible). This is especially important in the US, since most Protestant churches don't have a central figure that could, like The Pope or The King/Queen of England, officially condemn such ignorant interpretations. These days, influence of religious authorities is usually backwards rather than forwards, so I believe its a good thing to see religion fading away.

Of course, that's not to say that non-religious idiotic beliefs won't arise instead (there's already a lot to chose from). That said, such beliefs usually don't have such "staying power" as organized religions, mostly due to not being so firmly entrenched in the culture, so they're a bit less of a problem.

[rubixcube]

45% for people aged 18-30 is still a massive number though.

But it's much less than it used to be, and with luck, it should keep shrinking

The presence or absence of devotion to religion is not a problem in either direction.  The idea that it is somehow to blame for anything (or that its reduction is something to be desired) miss the point.  It may be more frequently used as a tool for rhetoric and demagogues, but I think it's fairly evident that it's not the only thing (or even the worst.  Thank you, Mr. Trump, for proving that at least) that stirs violent passions.

As bad as Trump is, he's not as bad as Ted Cruz, coincidentally the most religious candidate in the running for president

My problem with religion is that it gives people an easy tool to justify otherwise horrific acts without requiring logic or reason, and yes I realize their are other ways of achieving this, but faith provides one of the easiest routs to manipulate the uneducated masses

[FrikgFeek]

Unfortunately, people have found new idols to worship and blindly believe in. Like Chris(t) Roberts and SC.

[666maslo666]

Unfortunately, people have found new idols to worship and blindly believe in. Like Chris(t) Roberts and SC.

Heresy!

[Phantom Hoover]

These figures have been going this way for a long while; the thing is, they don't represent an actual drop in 'religious belief' as much as a drop in social pressures to self-identify as religious.

[NGTM-1R]

My problem with religion is that it gives people an easy tool to justify otherwise horrific acts without requiring logic or reason, and yes I realize their are other ways of achieving this, but faith provides one of the easiest routs to manipulate the uneducated masses

It doesn't, though. Leading people by the nose is easy, and has little to do with religion specifically. It could be established with any other kind of tribal affiliation just as well. Better, even, since those are not subject to awkward contradictions. The Southern Baptist's Conference is not overrun with people who hate gays because they are Southern Baptists; it is because the people who are a part of the conference have made hating gays a necessary step to being legitimate in their number. Men made it this way; and of late, men are challenging it as well. Religion was a context, not a predeterminator, of these shifts.

There is also a difference between professing faith and being faithful, or between saying you're religious and being observant. Phantom Hoover touched on it somewhat, but it should be noted it goes deeper; those who attend church regularly tend to be sharply divided from those who don't (and not always for the worse; the divide between Catholics who attend and those who don't actually skews liberal on the attendees side). The divide between professing and being is more subtle politically but tends to be pretty obvious in person. Ted Cruz is the most overtly religious candidate, but he doesn't act particularly like he has actual faith in a deity to apportion justice in and manage the affairs of either this world or the next.

Or to put it another way, I once saw an argument between two Baptist ministers, discussing the family that sheltered Anne Frank and her own family. They had to lie, constantly. One argued that this moral relativism was abhorrent, and an affront to God. The other rebuked him, and said that such compromises to achieve good are a consequence of the human condition; to be imperfect creatures in an imperfect world, wholly dependent on the forgiveness and the grace of the Lord for salvation. The first minister professed his faith, but only the second demonstrated "confidence and trust" in his deity.

[zookeeper]

Or to put it another way, I once saw an argument between two Baptist ministers, discussing the family that sheltered Anne Frank and her own family. They had to lie, constantly. One argued that this moral relativism was abhorrent, and an affront to God. The other rebuked him, and said that such compromises to achieve good are a consequence of the human condition; to be imperfect creatures in an imperfect world, wholly dependent on the forgiveness and the grace of the Lord for salvation. The first minister professed his faith, but only the second demonstrated "confidence and trust" in his deity.

Or you can reasonably see it exactly the other way around: the first minister demonstrated confidence and trust that what the deity tells you to do is actually the right thing to do regardless of whether it's easy or hard to makes sense to you or not, while the second minister merely professed their faith and clearly did not trust that as long as people follow the deity's commandments, the deity will take care of the rest.

[The E]

Or you can reasonably see it exactly the other way around: the first minister demonstrated confidence and trust that what the deity tells you to do is actually the right thing to do regardless of whether it's easy or hard to makes sense to you or not, while the second minister merely professed their faith and clearly did not trust that as long as people follow the deity's commandments, the deity will take care of the rest.

Which, in this concrete example, would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the holocaust was god's will....

[NGTM-1R]

Or you can reasonably see it exactly the other way around: the first minister demonstrated confidence and trust that what the deity tells you to do is actually the right thing to do regardless of whether it's easy or hard to makes sense to you or not, while the second minister merely professed their faith and clearly did not trust that as long as people follow the deity's commandments, the deity will take care of the rest.

Aside from The E's point about how that makes relatively little sense specifically here, the problem you're having is that you are reducing the concept of the divine to something decidedly human and petty, inflexible and even moronic, rather than an omniscient being (and hence one that understands simple facts humans have long grasped, such as not every rule applies equally to every situation and that rules can be perverted to do harm as much as they can be solid guidance about doing good) who genuinely cares for his creations and would forgive them their mistakes in their stumbling efforts to be better, so long as they make a genuine effort.

As Karl Barth spent several thousand pages trying to explain much more magisterially, remember we're talking about God here. Not the Pointy-Haired Boss from Dilbert.

[zookeeper]

Or you can reasonably see it exactly the other way around: the first minister demonstrated confidence and trust that what the deity tells you to do is actually the right thing to do regardless of whether it's easy or hard to makes sense to you or not, while the second minister merely professed their faith and clearly did not trust that as long as people follow the deity's commandments, the deity will take care of the rest.

Which, in this concrete example, would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the holocaust was god's will....

Well I don't see how that follows at all. Of course "the deity will take care of the rest" did not mean that the deity would prevent all wrongdoing against the believer in this life, neither of the ministers would claim that, and would agree that the nazis were acting against the deity's will.

[zookeeper]

Aside from The E's point about how that makes relatively little sense specifically here, the problem you're having is that you are reducing the concept of the divine to something decidedly human and petty, inflexible and even moronic, rather than an omniscient being (and hence one that understands simple facts humans have long grasped, such as not every rule applies equally to every situation and that rules can be perverted to do harm as much as they can be solid guidance about doing good) who genuinely cares for his creations and would forgive them their mistakes in their stumbling efforts to be better, so long as they make a genuine effort.

As Karl Barth spent several thousand pages trying to explain much more magisterially, remember we're talking about God here. Not the Pointy-Haired Boss from Dilbert.

I'm as vehemently anti-religion as they come, so naturally I'm not saying the concept of a deity telling you to not lie makes any sense. However, having faith that an omniscient deity knows their stuff and thus that even seemingly petty and moronic commandments must serve some greater purpose even if you can't understand it does not demonstrate lack of faith.

The dumber the deity's commandments seem like, the more faith it requires to stick with them. The minister who is against lying even when nazis come looking for people to cart off to be executed has to have more faith in their deity's great plan than the minister who caves in when the going gets rough and reverts to what even they themselves consider to be faulty human judgement.

Yes, I understand the point that the second minister seems more in tune with what might be seen as the spirit of the purported word of their deity, and not just the letter, but that's little more than favouring one religious interpretation over another. I much prefer it when people hold that kind of watered-down unfanatic religious beliefs incorporating some traces of rationality (as opposed to more literalist interpretations, that is), but I won't call them more faithful because of that.

[z64555]

It doesn't exactly help church attendance when members of the church are prosecuted for crimes, such as child molestation.

Also, the promotion of rational thinking and the idea of individuality may have hit some of the younger generations. It really tests one's faith if you must question the reasoning behind passages you've been instructed by your parents/family/priest to "follow to the letter."

[GhylTarvoke]

My problem with religion is that it gives people an easy tool to justify otherwise horrific acts without requiring logic or reason, and yes I realize their are other ways of achieving this, but faith provides one of the easiest routs to manipulate the uneducated masses

It doesn't, though. Leading people by the nose is easy, and has little to do with religion specifically. It could be established with any other kind of tribal affiliation just as well. Better, even, since those are not subject to awkward contradictions. The Southern Baptist's Conference is not overrun with people who hate gays because they are Southern Baptists; it is because the people who are a part of the conference have made hating gays a necessary step to being legitimate in their number. Men made it this way; and of late, men are challenging it as well. Religion was a context, not a predeterminator, of these shifts.

I have to agree with rubixcube. Obviously, strong convictions can exist in the absence of religion, but the strongest are produced by religion. There's a reason that martyrs and suicide bombers are associated with religion. Unless you believe in an afterlife, there's no selfish reason to sacrifice yourself.

[Grizzly]

I have to agree with rubixcube. Obviously, strong convictions can exist in the absence of religion, but the strongest are produced by religion. There's a reason that martyrs and suicide bombers are associated with religion. Unless you believe in an afterlife, there's no selfish reason to sacrifice yourself.

I'd agree with you, but as soon as I read this and re-read this I am always reminded of Japanese kamikaze pilots and wondering what religious motivations drove them.

[GhylTarvoke]

Good point. I assume that their motivations weren't selfish.