Churn in Religion

Pages

Interesting article regarding "churn" in religion.

link

More Americans have given up their faith or changed religions because of a gradual spiritual drift than switched because of a disillusionment over their churches' policies, according to a new study released today which illustrates how personal spiritual attitudes are taking precedence over denominational traditions.

The survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is the first large-scale study of the reasons behind Americans switching their religious faith and found that more than half of people have done so at least once during their lifetime.

I wonder how religious ranks will go up/down if the recession goes on for a long time.

It is telling that casual polling, possibly the coming census, have shown that people identifying with no religion aproaches a status greater than African Americans, gays, Jews. Some show as much as a quarter of the population as no religious affiliation. More intriguing is most show around 10 percent as atheist(again a larger group than openly gay or Jewish Americans). America is a bad place for gods.

I found this very interesting. Often my view is skewed by the area I live in. Here we've got churches on almost every block and for many communities the social connections are still largely centered around their church. Of course we also have lots of mega churches with thousands of members so that probably has an impact as well.

Does swapping one Christian affiliation to another qualify as "changing faith"? There definitely must be a lot of that.

KingGorilla wrote:

It is telling that casual polling, possibly the coming census, have shown that people identifying with no religion aproaches a status greater than African Americans, gays, Jews. Some show as much as a quarter of the population as no religious affiliation. More intriguing is most show around 10 percent as atheist(again a larger group than openly gay or Jewish Americans). America is a bad place for gods.

I'm not sure how you equate a 90% non atheist result in a country's poll with said country being a bad place for gods. 9 to 1 isn't exactly overwhelming denial of the divine.

Pew Report on Religion in America. You guys might be interested in the stats. The newsworthy bit is that those that describe themselves as unaffiliated with religion is up to 16%, a rise over previous numbers. That's nearing one in 6.

The day of complete secular politics draws nearer! Hurrah!

Nomad wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

It is telling that casual polling, possibly the coming census, have shown that people identifying with no religion aproaches a status greater than African Americans, gays, Jews. Some show as much as a quarter of the population as no religious affiliation. More intriguing is most show around 10 percent as atheist(again a larger group than openly gay or Jewish Americans). America is a bad place for gods.

I'm not sure how you equate a 90% non atheist result in a country's poll with said country being a bad place for gods. 9 to 1 isn't exactly overwhelming denial of the divine.

Sounds to me like it may have been an oddly worded question. For instance, if one is spiritual or a believer but chooses to worship in their own way, they belong to no religion yet are not atheist.

Fortunately, truth is not a popularity contest. While it's nice if lots of people agree with you, neither a growing number of atheists nor a majority of believers have any effect whatsoever on which group, if either, is correct.

Fortunately, truth is not a popularity contest.

I tend to disagree with that statement, on a practical level.

Also, compared to the average amount on non religious and atheist people in Europe, America still is very much a haven for believers.

I tend to disagree with that statement, on a practical level.

You can't vote something true, not in a useful sense. For example, the results of an experiment don't depend on what religion the person doing it belongs to, or what social caste they are, or their political beliefs.

For example, the results of an experiment don't depend on what religion the person doing it belongs to, or what social caste they are, or their political beliefs.

Interesting.

It would seem to me that there is a lot of junk science presented as fact, created by people for a specific purpose and that purpose being a reflection of their political beliefs.

That's why it's called Junk Science. And even that label is boomeranged around to cover legitimate work that disagrees with The Agenda.

If an experiment is properly designed, it can be replicated by anyone, regardless of race, creed, color or political beliefs. The results speak for themselves. This is one of the reasons for peer review (to ensure the work is at least minimally well designed and reported), and why a lot of high profile work comes out from several labs simultaneously, or nearly so.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Sounds to me like it may have been an oddly worded question. For instance, if one is spiritual or a believer but chooses to worship in their own way, they belong to no religion yet are not atheist.

Fortunately, truth is not a popularity contest. While it's nice if lots of people agree with you, neither a growing number of atheists nor a majority of believers have any effect whatsoever on which group, if either, is correct.

It certainly wasn't an oddly worded question:

Pew Survey wrote:

Q.16 What is your present religion, if any? Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox such as Greek or Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, something else, or nothing in particular?

INTERVIEWER: IF R VOLUNTEERS “nothing in particular, none, no religion, etc.” BEFORE REACHING END OF LIST, PROMPT WITH: and would you say that’s atheist, agnostic, or just nothing in particular?

Everyone listed as agnostic or atheistic said they were agnostic or atheistic. Pew knows how to survey.

Yeah, Pew's pretty good at surveys. They've done them before.

Newsweek recently had a story about, essentially, the same thing. It caused a bit of a stir. I found it to be a good read.

Only a few more years till GWJism has sufficient ranks to appear on surveys, though the whole Goojerism versus Goodjerism debate may split the community.

Irongut wrote:

Only a few more years till GWJism has sufficient ranks to appear on surveys, though the whole Goojerism versus Goodjerism debate may split the community.

And lo, we will nail upon thy door the 95 theses disputing the addition of the D in the holy Goojer name.

really though, from my experience, the concept that facts are indisputable is itself a disputable concept. Even the one true collection of facts -- mathematics -- can be argued depending on whether you agree on the basic tenets or not. Ten plus seven is fifteen for people still thinking in base 12, and 10001 in binary.

Without getting too meta, facts don't mean much when the gray matter analysing them is flawed to begin with.

Even the one true collection of facts -- mathematics -- can be argued depending on whether you agree on the basic tenets or not.

If they're pure logical constructs, then a change to the base axioms would result in an entire new system that would also be in agreement with its own axioms.

So if the system's axiom is X. All the stuff in that system is basically going If X, then A.

If you want a different system with different axioms, like Not X. That other system is then going If (Not X), then B.

The other If X, then A system is still valid.

Ten plus seven is fifteen for people still thinking in base 12, and 10001 in binary.

Failing to properly use notation doesn't change the result of addition (Well actually failing to properly use notation can certainly cause you to get the wrong answer, but that's not the same thing as you're stating). Also, if you're calling the binary string 11 eleven, you're messing things up pretty badly. Regardless of what integer base you use for example, * * * * * * * will still be a number whose only factors are * and itself.

Joe you're right -- metaphorically I was using the mathematical base as a replacement for individual perception -- people get different answers to simple questions because they're thinking in wholly unrelated base structures.

With math, it's fairly easy to just say "okay everyone it's base 10 for this entire situation," but realistically significantly more difficult to say "okay people you need to interpret these data exactly the same way I do."

This got wayyy more meta than I intended. Pretty soon someone's gonna call me out for insinuating that perception is reality and then I'm gonna have to smoke a joint, play the acoustic guitar, and brush my braided hair out of my eyes.

That's why it's called Junk Science. And even that label is boomeranged around to cover legitimate work that disagrees with The Agenda.

If an experiment is properly designed, it can be replicated by anyone, regardless of race, creed, color or political beliefs. The results speak for themselves. This is one of the reasons for peer review (to ensure the work is at least minimally well designed and reported), and why a lot of high profile work comes out from several labs simultaneously, or nearly so.

Results often don't speak for themselves. They require interpretation, analysis, and explanation.

The obfuscation of scientifically generated, peer reviewed data continues. Science is not an ideologically pure endeavor because humans are not capable of generating any thing free from some form of bias.

This is not to say that I feel science is an unworthy endeavor or that we're all better off reveling in mystical ways of thinking, rather, that we should always be mindful of who's telling us what we should think.

More on topic, I would say that I definitely fall in line with the results of this survey. I have more faith than religion and it's a faith really all my own. I believe there is some form of the divine but I really don't know that it's necessarily found in churches or a book.

Irongut wrote:

Only a few more years till GWJism has sufficient ranks to appear on surveys, though the whole Goojerism versus Goodjerism debate may split the community.

I hate to tell you guys but if it comes to that I'd be joining the church of the Jedi. I guess I'm a non-believer in goodjerism.

Kehama wrote:
Irongut wrote:

Only a few more years till GWJism has sufficient ranks to appear on surveys, though the whole Goojerism versus Goodjerism debate may split the community.

I hate to tell you guys but if it comes to that I'd be joining the church of the Jedi. I guess I'm a non-believer in goodjerism.

You are but a vessel. It's not what you believe, it's what the mitoclorians that course through your veins believe. Resistance is futile, and they are likely devotees of Goodjerism.

---

On a more serious note, in my own life, I probably am representative of the churn too. A Methodist growing up, living in Japan for 4+ years opened my eyes to the religious melting pot they have there. I must admit I liked how the mix of religious influences just seemed to come together as a part of daily life, instead of being a specific facet of life.

My mom and dad aren't very religious these days, but they were more active church members when we were young. I've caught my mom scolding herself once or twice, second guessing herself whether she'd done something 'wrong' that I am not very religious in a church-going sort of way. Our more relaxed stance on religion stands in pretty stark contrast to my brother's wife's side of the family.

Anyways, to reassure mom, I tell her honestly, I appreciate the lessons I learned, but at this time church just isnt for me. I know I haven't figured it out yet. I don't know where my spirituality will take me. I feel more pressure about figuring 'it' out on behalf of my kids, but instead of deciding on religion for them, I think I tend to give them a more open minded view of things. My instinct seems to be to talk about religion when questions arise, but ultimately I may just prepare them to make their own decisions when they are bigger.

Some of my relatives look at me funny because I've 'strayed' I guess. I've noticed that the family is a bit split between the very religious and the atheist(?), though not in a hostile way. It doesnt come out too often, but the most obvious difference of opinion occurs at the Thanksgiving or Christmas table where half the family closes their eyes focused on the importance of saying Grace, while the other half is wincing and has hands on forks ready to dive in.

The declaration of "atheist" on these type polls is always going to be lower than it actually is, until the stigma of atheism begins to fade in the U.S.

Dawkins often points out that there are a lot more atheists out there, in practical terms, than we realize. There are loads of people who I would classify as "apatheists", or those that just don't care one way or another, and/or don't think about it. They live their lives as if there were no god or gods to note. After 20+ years as a Christian, I fell into the apatheist category for about 5 years, until eventually moving to active atheism.

Which leads me to another thing ... I'm often asked by theists, when they find out I'm one of those demonic spawns of Satan known as an atheist, how can I KNOW there is no god. I don't. Atheism does NOT mean you assert full, 100% knowledge that no gods exist, any more than I can assert full-on knowledge that Santa Claus or leprechauns don't exist.

Atheism is the lack of belief that any gods exist. It is precisely the same thing as lacking belief that Santa Clause exists, yet oddly we find no aClausists in society, as those who lack belief in Santa aren't called on to explain this non-belief.

The big thing we're seeing in these polls is that America is clearly in a trend towards 'losing it's religion', as the number of Christian respondents has fallen about 15 points in the last 20 years, and non-theism has gained about that much.

Their misunderstanding is unavoidable, because the word's denotation is muddled to the point of being useless.

Jeff-66 wrote:

Atheism is the lack of belief that any gods exist. It is precisely the same thing as lacking belief that Santa Clause exists, yet oddly we find no aClausists in society, as those who lack belief in Santa aren't called on to explain this non-belief

That sounds more agnostic to me. In my view, agnostics are just atheists without the faith. Which is where I fall.

Jayhawker wrote:
Jeff-66 wrote:

Atheism is the lack of belief that any gods exist. It is precisely the same thing as lacking belief that Santa Clause exists, yet oddly we find no aClausists in society, as those who lack belief in Santa aren't called on to explain this non-belief

That sounds more agnostic to me. In my view, agnostics are just atheists without the faith. Which is where I fall.

I am an atheist and I don't have (or need) "faith". I don't need to trust that something doesn't exist.

Do you have faith that Santa Clause doesn't exist? or fairies or leprechauns or 7-headed dragons? The difference is identifying the likelihood of a thing. My atheism comes from the fact that I see no evidence for any gods.

Semantics definitely tend to come into play on this subject, but I just wanted to point out that in general, atheism does not attest to a 'perfect knowledge' that no gods exist. For all I know, we could be a giant computer simulation and "God" is the programmer. Atheism as it is currently understood means a lack of belief that any gods exist. I do have a strong confidence about this, in the same way that I have a confidence that Zeus or the sun god Ra don't exist. If you want to call this confidence "faith", so be it, but I doth protest

Jayhawker wrote:
Jeff-66 wrote:

Atheism is the lack of belief that any gods exist. It is precisely the same thing as lacking belief that Santa Clause exists, yet oddly we find no aClausists in society, as those who lack belief in Santa aren't called on to explain this non-belief

That sounds more agnostic to me. In my view, agnostics are just atheists without the faith. Which is where I fall.

Defining agnosticism is a fairly complicated matter as it's a grey area, but the accepted definition is that we can't ever know, which is vastly different than what Jeff said. Jeff said atheists don't believe in god(s).

garion333 wrote:

Defining agnosticism is a fairly complicated matter as it's a grey area, but the accepted definition is that we can't ever know, which is vastly different than what Jeff said. Jeff said atheists don't believe in god(s).

The defition you linked to has two definitions. These words suck at being words.

Each time you say that atheism is a lack of belief in god, I think the idea gets a little muddled. Why not just say disbelief?

garion333 wrote:

Each time you say that atheism is a lack of belief in god, I think the idea gets a little muddled. Why not just say disbelief?

You're asking me to say that I disbelieve in god(s) as opposed to saying that I lack belief in god(s)?

I guess I don't follow.

Jeff-66 wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Each time you say that atheism is a lack of belief in god, I think the idea gets a little muddled. Why not just say disbelief?

You're asking me to say that I disbelieve in god(s) as opposed to saying that I lack belief in god(s)?

I guess I don't follow.

Well, when you emphasize "lack of" it seems like you are missing something as opposed to saying disbelieve in which it sounds more like something you own and have thought about. Disbelief is an active assertion you don't believe.

It could just be the way I'm reading it.

Pages