Religious Affiliation in USA Continues to Decline. WHY?

[Riverwolf]

Then again, I have observed that Christian-esque thinking is demonstrable even among staunch atheists and anti-theists, so I wonder if the decline of formal Church affiliation will itself actually change how our overculture views itself and the world.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's more that the typical middle class first-worlder doesn't need to cope with much at all. It's easy to be irreligious when death is a far-off abstraction.

So, you hypothesise that dealing with death will lead atheists to run back to God?

It's called the fox hole.

Why the hell do you hide in a foxhole if you believe in God? Makes way more sense to find atheists there, hiding from bullets that will...you know...permanently end them. Or send them to hell, depending who you believe.

I don't think the growing cultural irreligiosity has much to do with reason or pragmatism but sheer indifference compounded by consumerism and social permissiveness. Secondly not all of us take for granted the "rationality" of ideological atheism.

...and thirdly, not all atheists are idealistically bankrupt pessimests looking for the easiest road through life, man, and screw all that moral talk, just let me do some drugs and have lots of irresponsible sex.
Phhht.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3156853/

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Then again, I have observed that Christian-esque thinking is demonstrable even among staunch atheists and anti-theists, so I wonder if the decline of formal Church affiliation will itself actually change how our overculture views itself and the world.

This is an interesting point.

 

[Nietzsche]

It's called the fox hole.

You're not doing much to help my view that at its core Christianity is rooted in little more than cowardice and rejection of self-responsibility.

 

[Skwim]

I don't think the growing cultural irreligiosity has much to do with reason or pragmatism but sheer indifference compounded by consumerism and social permissiveness.

Don't you mean that you don't think reason or pragmatism has much to do with the growing cultural irreligiosity?

Secondly not all of us take for granted the "rationality" of ideological atheism.

Of course not, but so what?

 

[Sees]

What would be the assumption if the numbers for Christianity were going in the other direction? Sure there would be a double standard in play

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Gotta agree. The need for religion is simply diminishing. People are finding they can cope with life quite well on their own, and will be passing these skills on to their progeny. Now, should some monumental crisis arise then I believe there would be a significant change. The decline would stop and there would be an upsurge in religiosity.

And that falling back in a crisis is because they're just pulling the security blanket off and throwing it in the fire. We're falling away because we don't need or believe that stuff any more. It was phony. But we aren't replacing it with some philosophy or way of thinking to help cope. And a crisis will come, either in the form of a catastrophe, or we'll meet up with the ultimate bugaboo of death (ours or a loved one) individually. If there isn't something firm to hold on to them, many will fall back into the easy regimen of not-thinking.

 

[Skwim]

What would be the assumption if the numbers for Christianity were going in the other direction? Sure there would be a double standard in play

What double standard?

I would guess that for whatever reason stress had entered the collective psyche of US citizens. More and more people would find themselves unable to cope without seeking comfort and reassurance from religion.

 

[Sees]

What double standard?

I would guess that for whatever reason stress has entered the collective psyche of US citizens. More and more people would find themselves unable to cope without seeking comfort and reassurance from religion.

People are pretty stressed and depressed right now as it is.

The double standard (that doesn't even need to be spoken, really) is religion declines because of access to truthful, useful info and knowledge....religion rises due to preaching, indoctrination...or as you said seeking comfort.

It is simply interpreting it through a "my side is right/true" lens.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would perhaps argue that it is more that Abrahamic religions are not emotionally satisfying, rather than intellectually unsatisfying. Or maybe in combination. But then, I think religion is more about emotion and experience rather than being a primarily intellectual activity.

Christianity can be very emotionally satisfying, especially when you're depressed and lonely. It was nice to think that there was a god who loved me and suffered with me. That's what makes letting go of Catholicism so difficult for me - it's a potent emotional crutch. You don't have friends or a lover? Well, Jesus fits the role quite well. Sometimes the only option you have is to play pretend because it's better than reality.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think traditional Abrahamic religions are in decline because they no longer intellectually satisfy many in the modern age. I think the Abrahamic era in human history is winding down to be replaced gradually by more (for lack of a perfect term) New Age and eastern concepts that can be more intellectually satisfying. The slow end of an age, and the slow rise of the new age. As New Age concepts take effort to grasp and sound 'weird' at first, I think (as we see) the rise in 'unaffiliated' means they haven't found anything that fits. These 'unaffiliated' generally believe in 'something' but have not heard anything that really can articulate what that is. 'Spiritual but not religious' is a phrase we are hearing more.

New Age gibberish is hardly "intellectually satisfying" and it would be horrible if it replaced mainstream Christianity, which is bad enough, especially the disgusting capitalist whore perversion of Christianity that's prevalent here.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What double standard?

I would guess that for whatever reason stress had entered the collective psyche of US citizens. More and more people would find themselves unable to cope without seeking comfort and reassurance from religion.

Depression and stress are at epidemic levels in the US. This country is falling apart.

 

[arthra]

As I said, WHY?

What are your ideas, suspicions, guesses?

While the numbers of registered adherents may be decreasing it's also true that belief in God is still dominant..

Pew Research Center surveys consistently show that not all religious “nones” are nonbelievers. In fact, the majority of Americans without a religious affiliation say they believe in God.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/

 

[Altfish]

The religious right/GOP have a lot to do with it.
Opposing Obamacare, anti abortion no matter what, tax breaks for the rich, blaming all disasters on Atheism, guns are great, etc, etc, etc.
Add to that paedophile rings being covered up by church elders

Young people are thinking, "I don't agree with all this"

 

[Glaurung]

So, you hypothesise that dealing with death will lead atheists to run back to God?

Not always, but the imminence of death certainly pushes many to reconsider the question. If you're going to hedge your bets, your deathbed is the time to do it.

Why the hell do you hide in a foxhole if you believe in God? Makes way more sense to find atheists there, hiding from bullets that will...you know...permanently end them. Or send them to hell, depending who you believe.

You misunderstand. Skwim mentioned that he sees the possibility of religion getting a resurgence if there's some major traumatic event in the future. This is an allusion to the 'no atheists in foxholes' trope which basically says that it's easy to take materialistic, nihilistic views about existence when one's existence is relatively unthreatened. It's easy to accept death as the end when you're not in immediate risk of it. But when one comes face to face with the sheer gravity of what that actually means then the hope that religion provides becomes so much more attractive. Of course, I'm not saying every atheist adopts religion when dying; just that many become a whole lot less apathetic about the question when the reaper is within sight.

and thirdly, not all atheists are idealistically bankrupt pessimests looking for the easiest road through life, man, and screw all that moral talk, just let me do some drugs and have lots of irresponsible sex. Phhht.

I didn't say that. In fact your average nominal Christian isn't any better and are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the explicitly irreligious. But let's be honest, it is the moral demands of traditional Christianity which is the most balked against aspect of the faith and what I think to be the real reason behind a lot of people rejecting it. Let's face it, sensuality is a lot of fun. Restraint is a hard thing in a consumerist culture that shoves sex in your face at pretty much every turn.

You're not doing much to help my view that at its core Christianity is rooted in little more than cowardice and rejection of self-responsibility.

To be honest, this is one of my biggest sources of doubt. To what extent do I really believe in Christianity, as opposed to adopting it out of an existential fear of death? (Deep down I'm actually paralyzingly self-aware) I'm much, much less certain about what I believe than what people may think reading my posts here. I sometimes think that I defend religion moreso out of my dislike for simplistic atheism than out of any sense of actual conviction.

Although as for self-responsibility you're just flat-out wrong. If you really believe in Christianity then you know that the fate of your immortal soul is riding on passing the test. If Christianity is true then there is far more riding on this life than mere death. And that's the other issue. Assuming that Christianity is true and I turn back from Christianity, then I (who knows fully well its claims) would have no chance for salvation. That possibility is not something you can just shrug off.

Claim that I'm hiding from responsibility all you want. You nonetheless have no flipping clue about the state of my mind.

Don't you mean that you don't think reason or pragmatism has much to do with the growing cultural irreligiosity?

Not for most. Few people are that introspective. I think most people believe what they want to believe. The rest is post hoc.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not always, but the imminence of death certainly pushes many to reconsider the question. If you're going to hedge your bets, one's deathbed is the time to do it.

Perhaps. I'd admit to personally having only been around a few deaths. My wife has been around a lot more, due to the nature of her job. Deathbed conversions appear to be very rare, based on the admittedly small sample size of our combined experience. She has more commonly seen...I dunno...call them cultural Christians, for want of a better description become suddenly ardent.

You misunderstand. Skwim mentioned that he sees the possibility of religion getting a resurgence if there's some major traumatic event in the future. This is an allusion to the 'no atheists in foxholes' trope which basically says that it's easy to take materialistic, nihilistic views about existence when one's existence is relatively unthreatened.

Apologies, I misunderstood your shorthand. Whilst I understood the trope to which you referred, it can be a little insulting dependent on intent. Again, personalizing, I have been in deadly situations, and God was the furthest thing from my mind.

It's easy to accept death as the end when you're not in immediate risk of it. But when one comes face to face with the sheer gravity of what that actually means then the hope that religion provides becomes so much more attractive. Of course, I'm not saying every atheist adopts religion when dying; just that many become a whole lot less apathetic about the question when the reaper is within sight.

It's a workable narrative, but why do you believe that to be true?

I didn't say that. In fact your average nominal Christian isn't any better and are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the explicitly irreligious.

Why do I feel like I just got a backhanded compliment?

But let's be honest, it is the moral demands of traditional Christianity which is the most balked against aspect of the faith and what I think to be the real reason behind a lot of people rejecting it. Let's face it, sensuality is a lot of fun. Restraint is a hard thing in a consumerist culture that shoves sex in your face at pretty much every turn.

*shrugs*
Again, I can speak only from personal experience and that of the atheists I know. I'd happily put my experience in life up to 'Christian scrutiny' if you like, and see what comes out. Apart from being damned for lack of faith, or whatever, I believe I'd come out of such scrutiny very well.

To be honest, this is one of my biggest sources of doubt. To what extent do I really believe in Christianity, as opposed to adopting it out of an existential fear of death? (Deep down I'm actually paralyzingly self-aware) I'm much, much less certain about what I believe than what people may think reading my posts here. I sometimes think that I defend religion moreso out of my dislike for simplistic atheism than out of any sense of actual conviction.

I know this wasn't for me, but for what it's worth I find that interesting. A dislike for atheism I can understand, since it is commonly dressed up as all sorts of nonsense, oftentimes by atheists. But a dislike for 'simple atheism'? That interests me. Why? Is it disbelief of a monotheist God which is dislikeable, or disbelief of any God?

Although as for self-responsibility you're just flat-out wrong. If you really believe in Christianity then you know that the fate of your immortal soul is riding on passing the test. If Christianity is true then there is far more riding on this life than mere death. And that's the other issue. Assuming that Christianity is true and I turn back from Christianity, then I (who knows fully well its claims) would have no chance for salvation. That possibility is not something you can just shrug off.

(Sorry, at this point, I'm just butting in , but you appear willing to extrapolate on your thoughts, so I'm taking advantage!!)
It appears, though, that it is. Who is the group you would point to as indicators of 'real' belief who therefore guard their immortal soul with such care? Or if there are multiple groups, how are their differences reconciled? Pascal's Wager is a nonsense for that very reason.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But let's be honest, it is the moral demands of traditional Christianity which is the most balked against aspect of the faith and what I think to be the real reason behind a lot of people rejecting it. Let's face it, sensuality is a lot of fun. Restraint is a hard thing in a consumerist culture that shoves sex in your face at pretty much every turn.

Well, it's not so much that Christianity has moral standards and people reject them because they really just want to be promiscuous hedonists who partake in weekly orgies as it is that Christianity's moral standards are completely unrealistic. For example, Catholicism teaching that masturbation is a "grave sin" (meaning that you could go to hell over it). Why should people feel such crushing guilt and shame over such a mundane thing? Even my dog masturbates (if my mom's pillows were a female dog, we'd have a couple litters by now, lol). It's psychologically unhealthy to treat sexuality in such a way. When I tried to follow Catholicism's sexual teachings, it made me neurotic and I felt "dirty" and ashamed when I gave in and masturbated. When I first converted to Catholicism, I actually did give up masturbation for a year. But guess what? It made me obsessed with it and I eventually had involuntary orgasms because I was so pent-up.

So it's not that people want to be wild hedonists, they just don't want to be condemned for simply being normal human beings. In my experience, at least.

Plus, let's face it: no one's really going to be able to live up to the Catholic example of Jesus and Mary. How in the world could we? Jesus is said to be God in the flesh and both are said to be untouched by Original Sin. So both of them are perfect in every way. They don't even have the inclination to sin. The possibility of them sinning was there, but it was so minuscule as to be functionally zero. So Catholicism is a perfect guilt machine that makes you feel like crap for just being human. There's also a long history of sadomasochistic practices in Catholicism and repression induced hysteria ("convent hysteria"). Catholicism is a very violent and gory faith (look at many of the icons and the graphic crucifixes, especially the older ones) and that may be a product of its suffocating sexual repression.

By the way, Western culture (particularly America and elsewhere in the Anglosphere) is very conservative about sex. They just tend to be two-faced about it because the advertisers and such know how to play games with our sexual repression. If this was the Classical Hellenic world, even many liberals would be having apoplectic fits over the raw sexuality on display. We're positively Puritan compared to them.

 

[Glaurung]

Again, I can speak only from personal experience and that of the atheists I know. I'd happily put my experience in life up to 'Christian scrutiny' if you like, and see what comes out. Apart from being damned for lack of faith, or whatever, I believe I'd come out of such scrutiny very well.

If traditional Catholicism is to be the set bar, I guarantee that you are screwed. A single unrepentant mortal sin (which can be as something as 'trivial' as masturbation yet alone the use of contraception) will land you in Hell. It was common opinion among early and mediaeval theologians that the vast majority are damned. (For logical reasons when you understand just how serious the threat of Hell is in the Catholic framework) Of course the modern trend is the opposite extreme.

I know this wasn't for me, but for what it's worth I find that interesting. A dislike for atheism I can understand, since it is commonly dressed up as all sorts of nonsense, oftentimes by atheists. But a dislike for 'simple atheism'? That interests me. Why? Is it disbelief of a monotheist God which is dislikeable, or disbelief of any God?

By simplistic ideological atheism I mean the philosophically vapid, self-assured and theologically naive anti-religion that is preached on the internet. Identity or movement atheism, call it whatever you want I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. I think that it's a bankrupt ideology that is at its core nothing more than a reaction against American Fundamentalist Protestantism.

It angers me when I'm accused of believing in "sky-daddies" because it's an egregious strawman. They're too busy patting themselves on the back with their 'rationality' over really being truth seeking. It's hypocritical and blood boiling when you see past the rhetoric. They're just another special interest group. And most of them are pseudo-intellectuals to be frank.

(Sorry, at this point, I'm just butting in , but you appear willing to extrapolate on your thoughts, so I'm taking advantage!!)
It appears, though, that it is. Who is the group you would point to as indicators of 'real' belief who therefore guard their immortal soul with such care? Or if there are multiple groups, how are their differences reconciled? Pascal's Wager is a nonsense for that very reason.

Pascals Wager was intended within the context of someone who had already ruled out other religions. You really don't think one of the most brilliant minds in human history actually believed the wager to be a stand alone argument for belief? But this is neither here or there.

I'm obviously aware that I have no way of actually knowing whether or not Catholicism is any more likely than other exclusivist theologies. (Well for historical reasons I can objectively say that it's more likely than 'Bible-only' Protestantism which is a relatively modern development) I'm well aware that my 'beliefs' are a product of happenstance. I was born to an observant mother. I know that if Islam is true then my fear of God is for naught because I'm a shirk committing Christian kafir who's going to hell anyway. Yet I don't fear that possibility because I don't think Islam is likely (because the dice roll of happenstance didn't lead to a situation conductive to belief in it) As I said I'm not a self-certain zealot. I know that there are real objections to Christianity (as opposed to the anti-Christian rhetoric) which are constantly on my mind.

The last thing you can do is accuse me of "escaping self-responsibility" I'm far more self-aware than to be using religion as a security blanket. If anything it makes the possible sakes that much bigger. Life would be easier as an atheist. Adopting some 'self-affirming' New Age bunk would be running from reality.

I'm not sure to what extent I believe, and I don't want to inadvertently imply that I don't believe either. But I'm not going to wave the believer/unbeliever flag merely by the whims of doubt and belief.

 

[Quetzal]

Linked to the education point someone made earlier, but also I think social issues have become a huge role in politics. Some christian groups, especially, stand strong against these very issues that are important to the new voting population (which also happens to be the most educated). In short, as older folks that are wed to traditional positions die off, a new, more socially liberal population takes their place.

 

[Glaurung]

Well, it's not so much that Christianity has moral standards and people reject them because they really just want to be promiscuous hedonists who partake in weekly orgies as it is that Christianity's moral standards are completely unrealistic.

I think the truth is in the middle. On the one hand Catholicism's demands are so that few actually live up to them. I know that all too well. However it's pretty naive to deny that western culture has become pretty crass in its permissiveness. Casual sex is encouraged by the media culture and make no mistake it is crass. Does every second movie need a sex scene? Does all pop music have to be (whether directly or not) about sex? Can we actually advertise clothing and perfume brands without plastering semi-clad women all over the poster?

And it's not just the corporations or the media. The people create the culture they deserve. It does reflect us.