stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
I am aware that this sounds insulting to believers, but my honest opinion is that people have simply become less superstitious as science has provided explanations for phenomena previously ascribed to the doing of gods.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The decline of traditional religion in the West
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
I am aware that this sounds insulting to believers, but my honest opinion is that people have simply become less superstitious as science has provided explanations for phenomena previously ascribed to the doing of gods.
Good post. I wanted to mention the so-called coherence theory of truth by name here, which I believe you have just described, and probably already know by that name. Internally consistent mathematical systems generate a priori truths (not derived empirically). This is a different definition of truth. From The Coherence Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"A coherence theory of truth states that the truth of any (true) proposition consists in its coherence with some specified set of propositions. The coherence theory differs from its principal competitor, the correspondence theory of truth, in two essential respects. The competing theories give conflicting accounts of the relation that propositions bear to their truth conditions. [snip] According to one, the relation is coherence, according to the other, it is correspondence. The two theories also give conflicting accounts of truth conditions. According to the coherence theory, the truth conditions of propositions consist in other propositions. The correspondence theory, in contrast, states that the truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world."
But that's not religion. If it's true, it's history. Religion's truths would have to be truths determined through faith, and nothing believed by faith can be called truth by the correspondence theory of truth (or the coherence theory).
You must be employing a third definition of truth here, one that considers undemonstrable intuitions truth. The empiricist doesn't count such ideas as truth, since they can't be used to describe or anticipate nature. Furthermore, whenever I've asked what some of these spiritual truths gleaned by this other way of knowing are, I get no answers unless they are other vague, undemonstrable intuitions.
None available to man.
No religion has made me stronger, at least not directly in the way you probably mean. The only one I participated in taught me that faith and religion are not the path to truth, and can even cause one to make significant errors in life if religious doctrines that might affect life choices are acted on.
Your graphic doesn't support that. It didn't mention atheism.
Even so, the rise and fall of atheism and religion are going to be tied to the quality of life. Where life leaves people feeling vulnerable, they will be more religious. People become more religious as they lose control over their lives. In places in the world where this is happening, where people feel most vulnerable, they pray the most. As their worlds become more threatening due to climate change and the extreme weather, drought, and famine that follows, they will pray more.
This is the reason that religion plays much less of a role in the lives of those benefitting from the advances of humanism, especially science, which has made life longer, more functional (think eyeglasses), safer, easier (machines), more comfortable (air conditioning), and with the rise of the modern liberal secular state with guaranteed personal freedoms transforming people from serfs and subjects to autonomous citizens.
Religion does nothing like that for people, and people who have that want less religion. There's a reason it's easier to convert people on Skid Row and Death Row, where people have lost control over their now miserable lives, than on Restaurant Row, where they feel safe and comfortable. That kind of rise in theism doesn't speak to its truth value, but rather, its comforting value in troubling times.
Somebody already corrected you about it being fewer, so I'll amplify on that. At the risk of seeming pretentious or pedantic, here's why: In English grammar, some nouns are called countable, like table(s) and chair(s), and others not, like furniture. You can have one or three chairs, but not one or three "furnitures." So, one can have fewer chairs and less furniture, but not vice versa:
syo
Well-Known Member
I stand corrected.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Science and knowledge are undoubtedly a large part of it, when one understands natural phenomena, then superstition becomes redundant.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
see my featured post titled ' my true belief'. nonetheless spiritual truths do exist. empiricists dont have to look at them.
I think probably there's a lot of different reasons and not a monolithic one. I can only speak to my experience but for me:
1. The religions advertised and accessible in my immediate area were the epitome of the word 'narrow.' Narrow-minded, narrow social groups, overly homogenous and stagnant, which made them maladapted for learning, expanding, etc. As such it just retains too much artifacts of yesteryearcentury that just doesn't belong with the social, political and technological growth those religions haven't grown up with.
A lot of those religions have pretty significant out-groups, too. There's a lot of reasons I don't consider myself religious but I would never join any religion which wouldn't let women be in any/all parts of their hierarchical structure.
2. One of the big draws of churches over the centuries were ready access to social events. Today with global telecommunication there has never been an easier time to have an extremely broad social group with common hobbies and beliefs without a religion. And I'm not just talking about relationships online. It's also never been easier to get word out about local groups, or organize events and groups, without churches needing to be central to the process.
3. Access to nonreligious philosophy and ethics. People, including myself, don't feel like you need to have a religion to have a pro-social code of conduct when those were traditionally controlled and set by religious elements. This sort of ties back into global telecommunication as morals, ethics, philosophies, etc can be communicated en mass globally in a highly accessible way.
4. Other forms of personal ritual. If there's one thing I think religion provides with ease it's ritual. Personal ritual can help define purpose and give feelings of accomplishment, keep your time feeling organized and moving forward. But (and again this ties with global telecommunication) things that never existed in mass to provide ritual, especially things like exercise/personal training/meditation as well as myriads of hobby groups make it easy to set non-religious rituals in your life.
1. The religions advertised and accessible in my immediate area were the epitome of the word 'narrow.' Narrow-minded, narrow social groups, overly homogenous and stagnant, which made them maladapted for learning, expanding, etc. As such it just retains too much artifacts of yester
A lot of those religions have pretty significant out-groups, too. There's a lot of reasons I don't consider myself religious but I would never join any religion which wouldn't let women be in any/all parts of their hierarchical structure.
2. One of the big draws of churches over the centuries were ready access to social events. Today with global telecommunication there has never been an easier time to have an extremely broad social group with common hobbies and beliefs without a religion. And I'm not just talking about relationships online. It's also never been easier to get word out about local groups, or organize events and groups, without churches needing to be central to the process.
3. Access to nonreligious philosophy and ethics. People, including myself, don't feel like you need to have a religion to have a pro-social code of conduct when those were traditionally controlled and set by religious elements. This sort of ties back into global telecommunication as morals, ethics, philosophies, etc can be communicated en mass globally in a highly accessible way.
4. Other forms of personal ritual. If there's one thing I think religion provides with ease it's ritual. Personal ritual can help define purpose and give feelings of accomplishment, keep your time feeling organized and moving forward. But (and again this ties with global telecommunication) things that never existed in mass to provide ritual, especially things like exercise/personal training/meditation as well as myriads of hobby groups make it easy to set non-religious rituals in your life.
At least in the US, the decline is in traditional organized religion. But in contrast, another group that is also gaining steam are the "Religious Nones", aka the Spiritual but not Religious.
This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me, as religious needs and desires are most decidedly an individual thing.
Edit: Also, these sorts of surveys always seem to miss out on smaller faith groups, for favor of representing the mainstream faiths. ie asking about ones view on God™, but not which God/s they are referring too.
I think that people are losing interest in religion for a number of reasons.
1. it is failing to bring peace to the world
2. It has become outdated and irrelevant for this age
3. It has become entrenched in doctrines that bring neither happiness nor inner contentment and so cannot compete with materialism
4. People want to formulate their own beliefs investigating truth for themselves
5. Religious leaders have caused many to mistrust organised religion due to child sexual abuse and terrorism committed using religion
6. Conflict between religions.
7. No concrete solutions for todays problems.
But of all these reasons I believe religion’s irrelevancy to meet todays needs is the main reason. If religion can’t bring people together from different religions and can’t create unity between people of what use is it?
For religion to become popular again, it needs to solve todays problems. It needs first to create love between all in the world and establish justice. But so far, all the religious masses and prayers are not stopping the wars in places like Ukraine, Syria and Myanmar. If religions are claiming they have God on their side then why have they become so impotent?
Ask a Christian and he/she will tell you that when Christ returns the earth will become the kingdom of God. But that speak really is a very poor excuse to try and cover up that most of the religions today are spiritually dead and incapable of extricating humanity from its predicaments. And in all the scriptures of the world religions it is clearly stated their religion will decay and a new teacher will come who will renew religion.
Regardless of each religion feeling it is the only right one and will last forever, they are helpless to do anything about todays problems and people are walking away I believe, because they can see this irrelevancy.
So my argument is that religions have failed people because their relevancy is ended. They have no clue, no direction and no plan for humanity because their teachings and laws were for previous ages.
Today the most urgent need in the world is justice. And we can’t have justice unless we are united. So we have brutality in our world that can’t be halted for fear intervention could provoke a nuclear war because the world is not united. So war criminals can commit genocide at will knowing that their ‘allies’ will veto any intervention at the UN. Religion has failed the world dismally because instead of bringing us together it has caused so much division that now the world can’t come together to answer cries for help by people being tortured and brutalised.
One can pray and meditate for eternity but the only way to fix this world is for justice to reign and that won’t happen without unity and everyone being united and on the same page.
And where is religion when it comes to uniting people? How are they going to unite people when they have like 30,000 sects or have wars between each other. So people I believe, have turned away from religion mainly because it seems irrelevant for todays needs.
For religion to ever be accepted again, in my humble opinion, it has to cease being a cause of division and be a force that unites.
1. it is failing to bring peace to the world
2. It has become outdated and irrelevant for this age
3. It has become entrenched in doctrines that bring neither happiness nor inner contentment and so cannot compete with materialism
4. People want to formulate their own beliefs investigating truth for themselves
5. Religious leaders have caused many to mistrust organised religion due to child sexual abuse and terrorism committed using religion
6. Conflict between religions.
7. No concrete solutions for todays problems.
But of all these reasons I believe religion’s irrelevancy to meet todays needs is the main reason. If religion can’t bring people together from different religions and can’t create unity between people of what use is it?
For religion to become popular again, it needs to solve todays problems. It needs first to create love between all in the world and establish justice. But so far, all the religious masses and prayers are not stopping the wars in places like Ukraine, Syria and Myanmar. If religions are claiming they have God on their side then why have they become so impotent?
Ask a Christian and he/she will tell you that when Christ returns the earth will become the kingdom of God. But that speak really is a very poor excuse to try and cover up that most of the religions today are spiritually dead and incapable of extricating humanity from its predicaments. And in all the scriptures of the world religions it is clearly stated their religion will decay and a new teacher will come who will renew religion.
Regardless of each religion feeling it is the only right one and will last forever, they are helpless to do anything about todays problems and people are walking away I believe, because they can see this irrelevancy.
So my argument is that religions have failed people because their relevancy is ended. They have no clue, no direction and no plan for humanity because their teachings and laws were for previous ages.
Today the most urgent need in the world is justice. And we can’t have justice unless we are united. So we have brutality in our world that can’t be halted for fear intervention could provoke a nuclear war because the world is not united. So war criminals can commit genocide at will knowing that their ‘allies’ will veto any intervention at the UN. Religion has failed the world dismally because instead of bringing us together it has caused so much division that now the world can’t come together to answer cries for help by people being tortured and brutalised.
One can pray and meditate for eternity but the only way to fix this world is for justice to reign and that won’t happen without unity and everyone being united and on the same page.
And where is religion when it comes to uniting people? How are they going to unite people when they have like 30,000 sects or have wars between each other. So people I believe, have turned away from religion mainly because it seems irrelevant for todays needs.
For religion to ever be accepted again, in my humble opinion, it has to cease being a cause of division and be a force that unites.
Bingo. A passage in the Bible, Luke 17:21, points in that direction: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Learn the meaning of ad hominem. If not only so that you can stop using the word incorrectly while engaging in the practice.
Or maybe you only made the accusation against me to act as camouflage for yourself?
My view: polytheism and divination from Satan becomes hip and cool when you follow desires, desires become easy when you live in luxury, luxury becomes a norm when you oppress others, and apathy becomes a symptom when you ignore the oppressed which creates distance to the light of God and his oneness.
Also Abrahamic faiths are all corrupted in appearance, although Gospels mostly beautiful people who believe in the Gospels believe in the corrupted and awful tanakh (Bible comes as one to them), but Quran translations and what is emphasized by "our great men and leaders" (allusion to end of Surah Ahzab) from the hadiths, is really corrupted and no person with reason can accept Islam as Muslims have presented it.
Also Abrahamic faiths are all corrupted in appearance, although Gospels mostly beautiful people who believe in the Gospels believe in the corrupted and awful tanakh (Bible comes as one to them), but Quran translations and what is emphasized by "our great men and leaders" (allusion to end of Surah Ahzab) from the hadiths, is really corrupted and no person with reason can accept Islam as Muslims have presented it.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
And. as usual, I ask does this include your religion, the Baha'i Faith? Has it brought peace? Have the Baha'i prayers stopped wars? Is the Baha'i Faith a model for all the other religions to model on how to bring peace and unity to the world?
You've just said that those other religions are outdated and irrelevant. And how do Baha'is expect them to unite? By doing what? By admitting they are outdated and irrelevant. And which religion isn't outdated and irrelevant? Which religion can bring peace and unity to all the religions and people of the world? Of course, it is the Baha'i Faith.
This is what I was expecting.
Did you read what I wrote? I had written, "You must be employing a third definition of truth here, one that considers undemonstrable intuitions truth. The empiricist doesn't count such ideas as truth, since they can't be used to describe or anticipate nature. Furthermore, whenever I've asked what some of these spiritual truths gleaned by this other way of knowing are, I get no answers unless they are other vague, undemonstrable intuitions."
Why? To find examples of what you mean by spiritual truth? You wouldn't make the effort to write one of them here, but you apparently want me to find this thread that you haven't even linked to and read it to get them. I already know that it contains your undemonstrable intuitions, which are not truth as I defined it.
I wasn't expecting you to produce anything to back up your claims. As I said, I've asked dozens of people who claimed to have special ways of divining truth to give examples, and none have tried. Your intuitions may seem correct to you, but that's not enough for a critical thinker to call them truths. You'd need to demonstrate that they are correct. But first, you'd need to articulate them. Let me help: "God is real." That's something you might call a spiritual truth. I would call it a faith-based belief that could be incorrect.
Your job as a believer is to promote your religion. My job as a skeptic is to apply the rules of valid reason applied to evidence and true premises, and to identify when others have generated unsound conclusions by violating them.
Search what? The meanings of unaffiliated and atheism? I know the meanings of both words, and they are not synonymous. You were simply in error, and as usual, you began condescendingly gaslighting rather than admit your error. You feign some kind of superior understanding by implying that others need to catch up with you. Catch up to what? You mistaking unaffiliated for atheism?
It you who needs to catch up. You need to rebut my claim if you think you can, or concede that you can't. I stated that your graphic didn't support your claim. You didn't even try to rebut that, so the discussion is over. It ended with the last plausible, unrebutted argument.
Last edited:
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
dont look i dont really care
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
i read what you wrote and i still stand with what i said. skeptics can go be skeptical someplace else
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence to support this claim?
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
dont need to. cool if u need evifence for stuff though, but i dont.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
You realise you're in a debate forum right? There are other forum for sharing beliefs without debate.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
to you the same