Religious Affiliation in USA Continues to Decline. WHY?

[lewisnotmiller]

You failed to include all crime with your nice little graph that only represents reported murders. Yes the 70s and 80s had a higher murder rate. Care to guess why?

I'll save you the time. Has to do with bikers, gangs, drug cartels....

I can kick it back to the 1850s if you prefer. I'll save you time, it doesn't support your hypothesis.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The things we see most common in criminals is lack of healthy cultural identification and values, poor family structure, etc. think religion, as usually used in only meaning belief system, is a part of it but not the whole shebang. When people have a proud, healthy, strong foundation they just tend to act like decent, normal folks. The people in and out of the justice system don't have that stuff from religion or otherwise.

I don't think most religious people, even specifically Christians, attend church at all...the common complaint is they don't find the right church or just don't think it's necessary to go regardless...the "church=people, not a building" types.

I'm okay with your point, as long as you realise mine.
Church attendance or claimed belief is not indicative of behaviour.
I believe your point is that strong communal bonds, be they religious, family, etc, have an overall beneficial effect in terms of behaviour. If so, no argument from me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is likely people from atheism, and deism is very easy to join, as a religion.

You,ll trend from atheism to theism, because the theism numbers are more, in the first place. An isolated atheist trend will shift to either the same, or other denominations, -as it trends towards theism., however one might expect an increase in attendance-adherence, to faiths that do not require a lot preliminary ceremony, etc.

Hence your deism increase

That makes some sense. However, a lot of the anti-theistic arguments used by atheists (myself included) don't apply in the same way to deism. Or Panentheism. There is (I think) less cognitive dissonance required to make that sort of leap.

 

[Sees]

I'm okay with your point, as long as you realise mine.
Church attendance or claimed belief is not indicative of behaviour.
I believe your point is that strong communal bonds, be they religious, family, etc, have an overall beneficial effect in terms of behaviour. If so, no argument from me.

It can be...I would feel very safe wagering a large sum that absolutely nobody at the county jail right now, or the state prison the next country over, has attended a church every Sunday outside of childhood. It's possible I would lose but I strongly doubt it.

Also would wager that they didn't spend hours a week reading philosophy, studying mythology, debating theology, praying or peforming rituals, meditating, etc. regardless of specific religious beliefs.

When it comes down to it most criminals here do say they believe in God and Jesus or they say they don't have any religious beliefs at all. Very few are religious in any sense though. Theistic belief being identified as religion itself doesn't really work well with anything. It is the type of structure and dedication to values and sense of purpose and meaning that makes all the difference and is what I think of as religion. Beliefs in Gods, spirits, ghosts, etc. isn't the defining factor.

A lot of people in the U.S. are just lost and winging it, no sense of purpose or direction...and the ones who are also unemployed, or barely making it with a crap job, tend to be our cash-crops for the justice system. Usually the closest thing they have to religion is being saturated in a subculture that is often ripe with crime if not outright glorifying it. There is hardly any thought or practice of anything we would call religion by any definition.

Everybody who works or has worked in law enforcement or corrections can back that up. Serious study of religious factors within criminology is just too tabboo to reach the light of day though. All we get is poor people without father figures or role models break laws and poor people are often those who "need religion" - it's misleading.

 

[Neo Deist]

That has been proven to be NOT true.
The states in the US with the most murders and most people in jail correlate almost exactly with the states that are most religious.
The same applies in Europe, the least religious countries are the ones with least crime.

As a cop I see the exact opposite of your statements. I also read quite a bit on criminology, and every study I have come across agrees with my statements, not yours. So instead of just randomly making something up, please cite your sources.

As a matter of fact, if you browse on over to the FBI's website and research their hate crime statistics, you'll find that the more liberal the state, the higher the crime rate tends to be. Guess which states round out the top 5 for the most hate crimes (2014)?

California, Florida, New York, New Jersey...and Washington D.C.(although not a state) rounding out the list. Every single one of them a majority liberal state.

Guess which state was on the very bottom of the hate crime list? Alabama...the center of the Civil Rights Movement. Also a very conservative state deep in the Bible Belt.

Hmmm...

 

[Augustus]

And many humans are reasonable yours included.

Humans can be reasonable, some more than others, they are fundamentally irrational in general though.

think there's a lot more going to nihilism and materialism than move to a different philosophy.

Materialism is a different philosophy though.

we really really really need to go through all the chaff and come up with a universal moral code

Expecting a universal moral code is about as reasonable as expecting the 2nd coming of Christ.

Perhaps less so as it requires you to ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Meaning will ALWAYS be found within one's self. Revealed religion is mostly a diversion....at best.

If people find subjective meaning somewhere, why does it matter if that is religion or otherwise?

And, don't see other myths replacing it.

Of course they do, it's just that many people don't realise it. For example, the idea that applying a scientific rationality to all areas of life is intrinsically desirable is a myth, a story that creates meaning. Humanism, environmentalism, materialism, multiculturalism, living an ethical lifestyle, etc. All of these are myths.

People just replace one subjective preference with another and usually pretend that their preference is a universal truth.

 

[Altfish]

As a cop I see the exact opposite of your statements. I also read quite a bit on criminology, and every study I have come across agrees with my statements, not yours. So instead of just randomly making something up, please cite your sources.

There are many on the web, here is one such article...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Religion-Atheism-and-Crime

 

[Altfish]

As a cop I see the exact opposite of your statements. I also read quite a bit on criminology, and every study I have come across agrees with my statements, not yours. So instead of just randomly making something up, please cite your sources.

There are many on the web, here is one such article...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Religion-Atheism-and-Crime

As a cop I see the exact opposite of your statements. I also read quite a bit on criminology, and every study I have come across agrees with my statements, not yours. So instead of just randomly making something up, please cite your sources.

As a matter of fact, if you browse on over to the FBI's website and research their hate crime statistics, you'll find that the more liberal the state, the higher the crime rate tends to be.

Another article here...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

The draft study here...
http://pitweb.pitzer.edu/academics/...8/2014/12/FAC-Zuckerman-Sociology-Compass.pdf

 

[Neo Deist]

There are many on the web, here is one such article...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Religion-Atheism-and-Crime

So a quick Google search gave you some guy's blog (named Secularist10) with data that is almost a decade old? Try again.

 

[Neo Deist]

There are many on the web, here is one such article...

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Religion-Atheism-and-Crime

Another article here...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

The draft study here...
http://pitweb.pitzer.edu/academics/...8/2014/12/FAC-Zuckerman-Sociology-Compass.pdf

Bad info does you no justice. The psychologytoday.com article lists Alabama as one of the highest murder rate states, which is simply not true. California, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada (on and on) far outweigh Alabama in murder rates. Obviously he is putting a spin job on his story to try and push a certain agenda. Any fool can see right through that.

I'll stick to FBI stats based on UCRs.

 

[Altfish]

Bad info does you no justice. The psychologytoday.com article lists Alabama as one of the highest murder rate states, which is simply not true. California, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada (on and on) far outweigh Alabama in murder rates. Obviously he is putting a spin job on his story to try and push a certain agenda. Any fool can see right through that.

I'll stick to FBI stats based on UCRs.

Why am I not surprised that you are dissing the sources.
Could you now please link your source at the FBI?

 

[Revoltingest]

Bad info does you no justice. The psychologytoday.com article lists Alabama as one of the highest murder rate states, which is simply not true. California, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada (on and on) far outweigh Alabama in murder rates. Obviously he is putting a spin job on his story to try and push a certain agenda. Any fool can see right through that.

I'll stick to FBI stats based on UCRs.

Even if your statistics were correct, you're still relying upon the old correlation = causation argument.
But let's say your claimed trend in this post is cromulent. There are other explanations for this
Many of the states you cite have their worst crime in large cities dominated by minorities (eg, Detroit, Saginaw, & Flint in MI).
Would you argue that this correlation means blacks & Hispanics are the cause of increased crime?

To establish a cause for a trend requires more than superficial correlation.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Materialism is a different philosophy though.

Just sayin', that's where some end up.

Expecting a universal moral code is about as reasonable as expecting the 2nd coming of Christ.

Expecting everybody to accept it yeah, but acceptance by a reasonable majority could happen one day. The problem isn't really coming up with such a code, it's sloughing off all the crap that religions have glomed onto a simple moral core. But yeah, there will always be evil people thinking of themselves king of the world, where morality is only an obstacle to feeding their egos.

If people find subjective meaning somewhere, why does it matter if that is religion or otherwise?

Freedom is the right to be as dumb as you want, on your own dime. It's that caveat to which so many people and religions and governments object. The only thing that should be imposed/legislated is objective morality, meaning acts that are universally wrong, like murder, slavery and theft--one person violating the rights of another. All else is subjective virtues. You can't point to those and say, because of them, there is no objective morality. You put them in their place.

Of course they do, it's just that many people don't realise it. For example, the idea that applying a scientific rationality to all areas of life is intrinsically desirable is a myth, a story that creates meaning. Humanism, environmentalism, materialism, multiculturalism, living an ethical lifestyle, etc. All of these are myths.

Objective, scientific Truth is not the whole story. There is justice and love that lie on the spectrum towards subjective end with beauty and art--all of which are aspects of Truth as well.

People just replace one subjective preference with another and usually pretend that their preference is a universal truth.

That's because we've never sat down and studied Truth. There aren't any college courses in it, there isn't even a number for it in the Dewey Decimal System. People don't want to look too close at it because what they think is their universal Truth might not turn out to be so. The Truth is always enlightening, but it's also, very often, painful.

 

[Augustus]

The problem isn't really coming up with such a code, it's sloughing off all the crap that religions have glomed onto a simple moral core.

If religions are man made though, why is what they have to say not reflective of certain aspects of human nature?

Freedom is the right to be as dumb as you want, on your own dime. It's that caveat to which so many people and religions and governments object.

You are looking at it from the perspective that contemporary western morality reflects intrinsic human morality. Your argument rests on the individual as the supreme unit of morality, this is a statistical anomaly. Over human history, a collectivist morality has been more common than an individualistic morality.

The rights of the individual or the rights of the group, which take primacy? It depends on the culture, which is what there can be no universal morality as choosing one over the other changes things significantly.

The only thing that should be imposed/legislated is objective morality, meaning acts that are universally wrong, like murder, slavery and theft--one person violating the rights of another.

Well murder is a gray area, what is murder? Targetted drone strikes? Stand your ground? Death penalty? Vigilante justice?

In what way is opposition to slavery objective morality? Seems far more likely that the desire to dominate is 'objectively' part of the human condition. Also, is forced prison labour slavery? National service?

What about theft to feed a starving child? Wrong? Theft of intellectual property? Unlicensed drug manufacture in poor countries?

All else is subjective virtues. You can't point to those and say, because of them, there is no objective morality. You put them in their place.

There is subjectivity in all virtue. In the past, taking enemy slaves was a virtue worthy of great honour. Murdering a tyrant still might be.

We can say that there are certain things that all people would be against happening to themselves, but we have no evidence that the golden rule is something that all people would agree to.

The Truth is always enlightening, but it's also, very often, painful.

I imagine that the ideal society that you and I want to live in is pretty similar.

The problem is human nature does not seem to reflect this society. That doesn't mean that there cannot be 'good' people and 'good' societies, its just that these reflect a time and a place, rather than an evolution or a trend. History is cyclical we advance and regress.

"The Lord giveth and He taketh away". Here today, gone tomorrow.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Because adults stopped believing in Santa Claus? Basically.. ?? Who knew..

Not all religions are declining at the same rate. Some are actually growing, like Islam, which I can't for the life of me figure out why. I think with as hateful as fundamentalist Christians are, and as much as they defend a literal Bible, people are just tired of the whole thing. That's why I left Christianity.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And that is a net positive. The more educated people are becoming, the more that science explains that once only religion had any "answers" for, the more ridiculous the whole thing looks and the more people decide that they've had enough. No one should just blindly take someone else's claims at face value, they ought to check it out for themselves, which unfortunately few people ever do, because they're more concerned about comforting lies than the are in potentially uncomfortable truths.

Yea. A lot obviously has changed animal husbandry and fishing was the cutting edge of the day for most people, not to mention that education wasn't as nearly as accessible as it is today then it was, when only the most fortunate and privileged benefited.

 

[Skwim]

Of course they do, it's just that many people don't realise it. For example, the idea that applying a scientific rationality to all areas of life is intrinsically desirable is a myth, a story that creates meaning. Humanism, environmentalism, materialism, multiculturalism, living an ethical lifestyle, etc. All of these are myths.

People just replace one subjective preference with another and usually pretend that their preference is a universal truth.

 

[Augustus]

Q.E.D.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

If religions are man made though, why is what they have to say not reflective of certain aspects of human nature?

Simple. There people who are basically good, and there are people who are basically bad. Or do you consider human sacrifice to be good?

You are looking at it from the perspective that contemporary western morality reflects intrinsic human morality. Your argument rests on the individual as the supreme unit of morality,

Which is it, contemporary western or individual? In any case, your second sentence is correct. That's certainly better than subjective morality which is just a restatement of the might makes right concept which has been the favored unit of morality of tyrants for 10,000 years.

this is a statistical anomaly. Over human history, a collectivist morality has been more common than an individualistic morality.

You're partially correct. It's be a collectivist morality imposed on society by governments and religions. It's really easy to have "collectivist" appear to mean all of society, when it actually just applies to the elite. But it's OK, the masses will never catch on...probably.

The rights of the individual or the rights of the group, which take primacy? It depends on the culture, which is what there can be no universal morality as choosing one over the other changes things significantly.

Yeah, if the rights of the individual take precedence, then we can't justify things like genocide, or slavery, or imposed poverty, or preventing people from defending themselves. But on the other, if group rights take precedence, we can make it illegal to prevent men from going into girls bathrooms.

Well murder is a gray area, what is murder? Targetted drone strikes? Stand your ground? Death penalty? Vigilante justice?

When someone intentionally takes the life on an innocent, they forfeit their own right to life. The penalty for murder is the gray area which includes capital punishment. If someone is attempting to steal your life savings and the only way you can prevent it is to pull the trigger, then you are justified since his act has forfeited his rights. Is killing someone to prevent them from killing you, vigilante justice?

In what way is opposition to slavery objective morality? Seems far more likely that the desire to dominate is 'objectively' part of the human condition.

On that note, I think we're done here.

 

[rusra02]

An article in the November 2015 Awake addresses this question. I find most interesting that this decline in religion is foretold in the Bible. False religion is likened to a prostitute who consorts with the political rulers of the world. Using symbolic language, it foretells that the support she receives from her adherents would dry up, in preparation for her complete destruction.(Revelation 16:12, 18:8, 17:1,15)