Why there is no way back for religion in the West

[Skwim]

Thanks for the elaboration. I understand now better why you see it that way.

For me spirituality is my way of living. I am intrigued by it, like I am intrigued by science. I like to discover about science and spirit.

Others are intrigued by women and sex and relationships. For many, many people relationship is their comfort. Being alone is their sorrow

So, yes, I see your point. For those people "Sex and relationship is the crutch to their weakness". I don't need that crutch, I prefer the spiritual crutch.

Gotta say, I regard sex and relationship as a perk, and nowhere near a crutch.

..

 

[stvdv]

Gotta say, I regard sex and relationship as a perk, and nowhere near a crutch.

Right, that's how I see spirituality.

 

[Riders]

Considering the fact that I usually take sides with those who claim the churches attendance is going down this is embarrassing. I watched 12 minutes of it and could not watch anymore.

Its badly poorly done. He did not produce exact facts of exact churches and denominations he or any specific poll for statistics that was taken. he did not back up anything he said all he did was point to graphs. he needs exact charts and graphics denominations polls done about specific religions.

This is the most boring video I have seen in a while too boring!Wikipedia charts on the churches decline has tons more information then he had!

What he said about the smartest countries was not true. He was obviously pointing to China and Asian countries sense they are the most high tech supposedly smartest people.

However Buddhist they are many Buddhists believe in God and are very religious and there are many Christians and Jews there too. So e was wrong about that

America and European countries are smart too.

But in the end I do agree that the churches attendance in the USA have gone down, maybe Christianity is dying or maybe not but attendance is down.

I would have supported a video that provided good proof but sorry this one is not a good video IMO,I can not support it.

 

[Riders]

Indeed, there is also the fact that in emerging global powers outside the West like China, Christianity is increasingly becoming the religion of choice for the sophisticated, urban middle classes.

In other words, as Chinese people increase their wealth and standard of living, their likelihood of being Christian also increases (i.e. because Christians tend to be middle-class).

This same trend is occurring all across South-East Asia:


Evangelicalism is spreading among the Chinese of South-East Asia

Evangelicalism is spreading among the Chinese of South-East Asia

Devotees are “too blessed to be stressed”

Jan 4th 2018|
Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity is growing more quickly in Asia than most parts of the world, with over 200m adherents in 2015, up from 17m in 1970. The largest congregations are in South Korea and the Philippines, where dazzlingly large mega-churches hold tens of thousands of people. But Christian zeal is also increasing in other parts of the continent, including Indonesia and Malaysia, where proselytising among the Muslim majority is well nigh impossible, but where Buddhists, Confucians and Christians of other denominations, almost all of them ethnically Chinese, are proving receptive...

Most evangelicals see the growth of their churches as God’s work. But it also seems to have an aspirational element to it. “It is the de facto middle-class religion right now,” says Mr Chong. According to a study he conducted in 2013, over 50% of mega-church-goers had a university degree, a higher proportion than Christians of other sorts. That was in spite of the fact that mega-church Christians were more likely to have lived in public housing and to come from working-class backgrounds. They were also more likely to speak Chinese and to come from families which were not previously Christian.

Friendly ushers and peppy slogans (“too blessed to be stressed”) make the churches appealingly accessible. They are also good spots for making business connections. Churches in Singapore are places where people network with those they trust, says Thomas Harvey of the Oxford Centre of Mission Studies, a British charity. The feeling is that “these are people we know, these are people of integrity, character, education,” he says.
​

But these facts are not yet recognised by a lot Western and especially Eurocentric academics, who are obsessed with the empirically untested notion that Western norms of secularization working-in-tandem with higher living standards is some universally applicable 'social rule' across cultures.

It isn't, rather it betrays the bias of an ever increasingly more marginal part of the world (the West is declining in influence with every passing decade, while China and India rise). We are no longer the torchbearers and trend-setters for the rest of the planet.

By 2050, China will have more Christians than any other country in the world and Hindu India will have become a true powerhouse, with some even suggesting it may become a developed country.

And I see little evidence to suggest that Islamic religiosity in majority Muslim countries will be significantly dented by any projected rise in living standards or economic productivity, as you indicate with reference to Dubai and the Arab Emirates.

The decline in Christian attendance and affiliation in the West should, I think, be attributed to factors inherent to Christian churches and their failures, than it is to religion as a whole or supernatural beliefs (the latter of which remain stubbornly persistent as we can see from horoscopes and belief in superstitious luck).

Christianiity is growing in Asia but its still only 5 percent of Asia so it has a long way to go to get that big so I don't agree with you. However I do believe its growing in Asia along with Jewish and I think Muslim too.

 

[blü 2]

The video focuses on religion in the West and partly makes the mistake of extending its findings to all religions.

But as he says, that's because the West is where the (forty) most developed countries are. In the fact the West is often a synonym for the developed world and so includes eg Australia and New Zealand (two he mentioned).

It builds its case by mentioning that most undeveloped countries are more religious than developed ones but overlooks that developed countries are overwhelmingly Christian, and so the results should not be generalized to all religions without treating the possibility that the specific religion matters.

I agree that's an important point, but I'm not so persuaded that he overlooked it. However, as you say, the majority of examples are Christian countries, so it may be arguable that it remains to be shown whether the same is true of Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist &c countries. As against that, I had the impression that his generalizations would be backed by more extensive but likewise more detailed and particular data than he had time to specify. Or as you put it,

"Perhaps statistically the video feels it can account for the variables and generalize but no explanation is given."​

What I am saying is the video mistakenly treats all religions in the same way.

That wasn't my impression. I thought he was generally careful with his expressions.

He is hoping the religions will go away. He is most likely incorrect. He reveals this by appealing to the idea of no religion in the future without having treated some glaring flaws.

Or are you hoping the religions won't go away? I agree that examples from non-Christian religions would be illuminating, but the reason there was very little about that is because at present the most developed countries are Christian. That's not his fault. And since, as we know, the number of children per couple falls as the standard of living rises (in all religions), it's not out of the question that the parcel of attitudes that also change includes religion.

But time will unfold the answers. The truth will out. You may be right. He may be right. We may all be wrong.

 

[David T]

Interesting video. It seems religion worldwide declines as a nation's wealth and other factors increase. Moreover, in the West, religion has been in slow, generational decline for the past century. That is, each generation has been a little less religious than the one before it.

The argument that there is no way back from this decline seems to hinge on the notion that people find it very difficult in general to convert to a religion as adults. That is, most -- but not all -- people raised in non-religious households will stay non-religious as adults.

Questions? Comments?

Mass mind trading in for mass mind no matter how "smartly" dressed it is is still mass mind.. Who cares about its latest fashion statements? Its still mass mind..

 

[Marcion]

One could argue five outcomes for us all with religion:
1/ A fundamentalism/orthodox practice of a traditional religion such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism
2/ A moderate/liberal approach
3/ Becoming a nominal member of a religion. Eg going to church at Christmas only
4/ Leaving religion altogether
5/ A new religious movement that draws on the positive traditions of the past but offers a very different paradigm that fits with the modern world, science and religious diversity.

I've taken option number five. Whether that works the best, time will tell,

1/ A fundamentalism/orthodox practice of a traditional religion such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism
2/ A moderate/liberal approach
3/ Becoming a nominal member of a religion. Eg going to church at Christmas only
4/ Leaving religion altogether
5/ A new religious movement that draws on the positive traditions of the past but offers a very different paradigm that fits with the modern world, science and religious diversity.
6/ A move away from irrational religions and a rise in movements teaching non-dogmatic philosophically based spiritual systems.

I've taken number 6/.
It is already the trend in developed nations.

 

[shmogie]

Interesting video. It seems religion worldwide declines as a nation's wealth and other factors increase. Moreover, in the West, religion has been in slow, generational decline for the past century. That is, each generation has been a little less religious than the one before it.

The argument that there is no way back from this decline seems to hinge on the notion that people find it very difficult in general to convert to a religion as adults. That is, most -- but not all -- people raised in non-religious households will stay non-religious as adults.

Questions? Comments?

Sounds like the reasoning of Voltaire, who said 150 years or so ago that Christianity was dead and that the Bible in the near future would be an unknown book. Oops !

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, it will be awesome when religion is eradicated and all men can live in direct communion with God.

That will never happen because God will never communicate directly with any human. God only communicates directly with Messengers of God.

 

[Axe Elf]

That will never happen because God will never communicate directly with any human. God only communicates directly with Messengers of God.

He has ways of imparting understanding to us prophets, too--but pretty much anyone who seeks Him can commune with Him. He wouldn't call someone to Him if He didn't intend on communing with them.

 

[Sunstone]

Sounds like the reasoning of Voltaire, who said 150 years or so ago that Christianity was dead and that the Bible in the near future would be an unknown book. Oops !

"The reasoning of Voltaire"?

In the first place, Shmogie, Voltaire lived from 1694 to 1778. He must have come back from the dead to have said anything "150 years or so ago". You're off by about a century -- at least.

In the second place, Voltaire most likely never said what you claim he said. The closest I could find to Voltaire saying anything about Christianity dying out was a quote fabricated by Christians to that effect. The quote has been debunked here.

Last, even if Voltaire somewhere said Christianity was going to die out -- and it seems likely he didn't -- Voltaire's reasoning could not have been "like" the reasoning of the social scientist in the video because the social scientist in the video is basing his ideas on information Voltaire had absolutely no access to.

 

[Trailblazer]

He has ways of imparting understanding to us prophets, too--but pretty much anyone who seeks Him can commune with Him. He wouldn't call someone to Him if He didn't intend on communing with them.

God does not commune with anyone except His Chosen Messengers aka Prophets.
As I just said, no more Prophets can come until at least 2852 A.D.

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 346​

 

[Sunstone]

That will never happen because God will never communicate directly with any human. God only communicates directly with Messengers of God.

That's a matter of opinion.

 

[Axe Elf]

God does not commune with anyone except His Chosen Messengers aka Prophets.
As I just said, no more Prophets can come until at least 2852 A.D.

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 346​

Oh good, so we have an objective test. I will persist in my position, and if God sends down one who deals mercilessly with me, then I will be forced to concede that you are right. If God fails to do so, then you will be forced to concede that I am right.

Let the experiment begin!

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Oh good, so we have an objective test. I will persist in my position, and if God sends down one who deals mercilessly with me, then I will be forced to concede that you are right. If God fails to do so, then you will be forced to concede that I am right.

Let the experiment begin!

Careful what you ask for

Regards Tony

 

[Axe Elf]

Careful what you ask for

I am.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's a matter of opinion.

No, it is a matter of my belief.
Opinions come from people, beliefs come from religions.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I am.

That is a big claim.

Regards Tony

 

[Sunstone]

No, it is a matter of my belief.
Opinions come from people, beliefs come from religions.

Religions are the opinions of other people, usually dead ones, that currently alive people believe.

 

[shmogie]

"The reasoning of Voltaire"?

In the first place, Shmogie, Voltaire lived from 1694 to 1778. He must have come back from the dead to have said anything "150 years or so ago". You're off by about a century -- at least.

In the second place, Voltaire most likely never said what you claim he said. The closest I could find to Voltaire saying anything about Christianity dying out was a quote fabricated by Christians to that effect. The quote has been debunked here.

Last, even if Voltaire somewhere said Christianity was going to die out -- and it seems likely he didn't -- Voltaire's reasoning could not have been "like" the reasoning of the social scientist in the video because the social scientist in the video is basing his ideas on information Voltaire had absolutely no access to.

Same tune, different words