45% for people aged 18-30 is still a massive number though.
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
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.
Unfortunately, people have found new idols to worship and blindly believe in. Like Chris(t) Roberts and SC.
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
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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....Are you serious?
Trying to separate religion from nationalism in pre WW2 Japan is like trying to separate oil from another slightly lighter oil, after three weeks in a blender./me tries applying a separation tower to religion and nationalism