Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 05:15 PM Aug 2013

‘It’s not that Christianity is unpopular, it’s that it’s untrue.’

Dueling young columnists discussed the rise of atheism among millenials Sunday morning on CNN.

Rachel Evans, an evangelical blogger, attributed the number of millenials abandoning the church to a loss of connection to the traditional religious values of service and spiritual connection, and not superficial questions of style. “I think there’s this assumption among a lot of Christian leaders that, you know, if we bring in some hipper worship bands and a coffee shop in the fellowship hall and maybe a pastor who wears skinny jeans young adults will come flocking back to the church,” she said. “Clearly, that’s not happening.”

But Hemant Mehta, author of The Young Atheist’s Survival Guide and editor of FriendlyAtheist.com, connected the rise of modern atheism to the increasingly-obvious problem of squaring religious belief with modern scientific reason and social ethics.

“Not all the millenials who are leaving church are necessarily flocking to atheism. But if you ask young people, if you ask millenials what comes to mind when they think of Christianity, when they think of the church, they will tell you it’s anti-gay, anti-doubt, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-sex education,” Mehta said. “We all know what the church is against, and we really don’t care what the church is for when you have that much baggage.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/18/hemant-mehta-on-rising-atheism-among-millenials-its-not-that-christianity-is-unpopular-its-that-its-untrue/
49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
‘It’s not that Christianity is unpopular, it’s that it’s untrue.’ (Original Post) SecularMotion Aug 2013 OP
It is a shame that churches are having a hard time attracting younger people. hrmjustin Aug 2013 #1
I don't think it is a shame at all rurallib Aug 2013 #5
I disagree. I think youth can bring a new perspective to faith. hrmjustin Aug 2013 #6
Unfortunately, you're not going to be able to saddle them Warpy Aug 2013 #26
Personally I went to church because I wanted to so I hope that they want to if they hrmjustin Aug 2013 #28
Interesting debate, but every survey I have seen on this group has cbayer Aug 2013 #2
One thing IS clear: people are rejecting the religious institutions of old. cleanhippie Aug 2013 #35
Christianity lost their credibility to science when, Yavapai Aug 2013 #3
That's some interesting history. I found a good article if anyone wants to know more: cbayer Aug 2013 #4
Indeed, some are dragging their feet, but many are in outright opposition. longship Aug 2013 #8
Agreed. They are the most dangerous. cbayer Aug 2013 #9
Hitchens' quote was not necessarily prescriptive. longship Aug 2013 #11
While I think you accurately describe some people's perception of a god, cbayer Aug 2013 #13
Aha! But here we are having a friendly conversation about it. longship Aug 2013 #15
He used that wit in his political discussions as well. cbayer Aug 2013 #16
I always get perspective from interactions in this forum. longship Aug 2013 #17
You, my friend, are a big pillow on that comfy couch. cbayer Aug 2013 #19
Thanks. nt longship Aug 2013 #20
Religion IS no good IgnostU Aug 2013 #46
What a bunch of malarkey. cbayer Aug 2013 #47
Barbecuing Giordano Bruno didn't help. Manifestor_of_Light Aug 2013 #7
William Tyndale, 1536. longship Aug 2013 #10
Yep, dangerous guy. Manifestor_of_Light Aug 2013 #12
Wow! What a response! longship Aug 2013 #14
The gesture of first strangling the toastee is an act of mercy. It was omitted when it was desired dimbear Aug 2013 #18
My argument. longship Aug 2013 #24
Bruno actually never did any real science. He was something of a speculative philosopher, struggle4progress Aug 2013 #21
The prosecution of Kepler's mother seems to have been initiated by secular authorities struggle4progress Aug 2013 #25
... During much of his life Galileo was not particularly interested in Copernicanism ... struggle4progress Aug 2013 #27
Im convinced LostOne4Ever Aug 2013 #22
On the other side of the coin, some religious organizations have been on the cbayer Aug 2013 #33
You are right there are religious organizations fighting for gay rights LostOne4Ever Aug 2013 #37
Excellent clarification and I don't disagree with most of what you say. cbayer Aug 2013 #40
Thanks LostOne4Ever Aug 2013 #41
I think that is beginning to happen and cbayer Aug 2013 #42
Gregor Mendel never found the selfish gene. rug Aug 2013 #23
Does any real harm come from believing things that are untrue? BlueStreak Aug 2013 #29
Sometimes, they do LostOne4Ever Aug 2013 #31
Well put. trotsky Aug 2013 #32
I suspect you meant this sarcastically, and you make some good points. cbayer Aug 2013 #34
Not sarcastic. Sometimes it is helpful to look at an issue from the opposite perspective BlueStreak Aug 2013 #38
I agree with most of what you say. cbayer Aug 2013 #39
Supply side economics? Leontius Aug 2013 #36
Two words: faith healing. 2ndAmForComputers Aug 2013 #43
Putting a sick child in God's hands could kill him. Manifestor_of_Light Aug 2013 #30
common sense IgnostU Aug 2013 #44
Religion is not fit for brainiacs but for the "challenged"? cbayer Aug 2013 #45
I enjoy going to my church so I don't want eliminate religion. hrmjustin Aug 2013 #48
I think your position and your advocacy have been falsified. longship Aug 2013 #49
 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
6. I disagree. I think youth can bring a new perspective to faith.
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 06:07 PM
Aug 2013

My church has many younger people and we are better for it.

Warpy

(111,255 posts)
26. Unfortunately, you're not going to be able to saddle them
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 10:54 PM
Aug 2013

with all the baggage generated by previous generations.

You'll have to wait until their children whine about being left out of all the church things their friends go to. Then they'll be dragged back but you can bet your life they won't believe a word of it.

Remember, we older Boomers inspired the same sort of wailing and lamentation that we were irreligious and rejected gawd. Some of us went back due to fear but most got dragged back by their children. I've seen this whole process.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
28. Personally I went to church because I wanted to so I hope that they want to if they
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 10:57 PM
Aug 2013

think it is for them.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
2. Interesting debate, but every survey I have seen on this group has
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 05:28 PM
Aug 2013

been all over the place. One thing appears certain, there is a trend to identify a "not religious" but no clear trend on what exactly that means.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
35. One thing IS clear: people are rejecting the religious institutions of old.
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 02:30 PM
Aug 2013

As well as thr newer evangelical nonsense in favor of a more "personal" beleif and non-beleif. And that is a good thing, don't you agree?

 

Yavapai

(825 posts)
3. Christianity lost their credibility to science when,
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 05:31 PM
Aug 2013

they started putting lightning rods on churches. Before that time, churches would ring their bells during thunderstorms to show god that they were believers and that he might stop punishing them.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
4. That's some interesting history. I found a good article if anyone wants to know more:
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 05:35 PM
Aug 2013
http://www.miltontimmons.com/ChruchesVsLightningRod.html

I think religion has yielded to science on many issues, though many have been slow to come around and some are still really dragging their feet.

longship

(40,416 posts)
8. Indeed, some are dragging their feet, but many are in outright opposition.
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 06:21 PM
Aug 2013

I am speaking of a whole lot of US (mostly) Protestant fundementalists and evangelicals. They go far beyond what one would call dragging their feet. They actually deny reality. This makes the USA one of the worst places on the planet for K-12 science education and it isn't getting any better. The USA basically owns this particular brand of anti-science. (One can argue that it originated here.)

It is odious and smarmy, like the pastors who peddle it, treading into matters which have nothing to do with what is normally religion. Non-overlapping magisteria, my ass! Religion pokes its greasy fingers into all magisteria. Nothing pisses me off about religion more than this undeniable fact.

I do not give a damn what people believe. But when clergy push their beliefs into areas where they are not welcome, that's when religion becomes outright dangerous. The problem is, it is a characteristic of religion to do precisely that.

Maybe religion can be a good thing. It certainly can inspire individuals to do good deeds. (So can a well-grounded sense of secular ethics -- be good for goodness sake.) Unfortunately it seemingly cannot do just that. And yes, I am undoubtedly over generalizing. But there is ample evidence that this assessment is correct.

Hitchens was correct. Religion poisons everything.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
9. Agreed. They are the most dangerous.
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 06:25 PM
Aug 2013

At a time when we are already lagging behind in science, they want to drag us even further backwards.

They seem desperate in their need to hang on to this, just as those that wouldn't put lightening rods on the churches did.

I think there is a balance, longship. Religion has pushed itself in in very positive ways at all. Civil right for black americans would have happened at some point, but would it have happened as quickly or effectively without the participation of the religious community? There are many examples of this.

I think Hitchens was wrong about this and many other things as well. It has the capacity to poison things, but it can also be the antidote.

longship

(40,416 posts)
11. Hitchens' quote was not necessarily prescriptive.
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 07:15 PM
Aug 2013

It was a can poison, not a must poison. But one must move beyond the quote and listen to what Christopher was actually trying to say. He made that position clear in his bountiful writing and his numerous debates, etc. but there is another element to the quote.

Like I said (maybe I contradict myself here), religion has greasy fingers and cannot help poking them into things which do not concern their professed magisteria. That is the origin of the "poisons everything" quote. Those who profess that religion is a good thing must either answer this charge or get out of the fucking way. I maintain that the problem is systemic with religion. Hitchens would likely agree if he was still with us.

I may be wrong; it is not an article of faith for me (so to speak). I would entertain arguments on this issue. But I do not think I am wrong. I think these attributes are endemic in religion. Once a group believes in a magic god who speaks truth one literally can't help oneself. I am sure that there are many counter examples. But I am not looking at the individual beliefs but the collective effects. This is a societal issue, not an individual one (let alone that of a single religious sect, no matter how benevolent). This is about how a religious meme propagates through culture and its effects on cultural institutions.

This is what Dennett has been talking about for years. Humans need to study and understand this very strange thing we are doing.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
13. While I think you accurately describe some people's perception of a god,
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 07:25 PM
Aug 2013

others see god as a much more passive thing. Perhaps a BF Skinner of sorts.

Religion is and has been an integral part of many cultures through time. It's been bad. It's been good. In the end, does it matter? It has been present, and will remain present.

The founders did what they could to try to keep it separate, but they never took the position that it should not exist. Quite the opposite. It was their intention to protect religion from government and vice versa.

Studying and understanding it are fine. Arguing for it's elimination is quite another.

And Hitchens didn't clarify his statement with a "can". He made a rather definitive statement, much as he did with many things.

While I found him entertaining and I think he did something positive in promoting atheism, I found his anti-theism repulsive.

longship

(40,416 posts)
15. Aha! But here we are having a friendly conversation about it.
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 07:50 PM
Aug 2013

Make no mistake. Hitchens was a very nice and gracious person, in spite of his razor sharp wit. (I posted another response about this down thread.) That razor was pointed at those who would use religion to leverage power, wealth, etc.

But it is my position (probably Hitchens' too) that religion has such a grip on culture that it is ripe for the picking as a tool for abuse. It has become a very powerful tool for many nefarious purposes. From wrapping women in big bags to wrapping entire countries similarly to outright bilking people for their money (Robert Tilton, Peter Popoff, Benny Hinn, Jimmy Bakker, even Jack Abramoff). Or the Catholic Church sweeping a long history of priest sexual abuse under the carpet.

If religion is a good thing, it must own the hind side as well. If religion truly is an ethical framework, I see little evidence of it in practice. It is only the non-religious who are speaking out about the abuses.

Religion owns these things, my friend. And Yet we hear very little.

BTW, I love the bus touring nuns. And they are still stepping up. That's the kind of thing religion has to do to change my mind. There's not enough of it.

As always. I appreciate your perspective and your insights. You keep me reevaluating myself, always a good thing.


cbayer

(146,218 posts)
16. He used that wit in his political discussions as well.
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 08:09 PM
Aug 2013

You know I agree with you about religion taking responsibility for the bad. Denying it is likely to lead to further abuse, and I think religious leaders have to be particularly vigilant about this.

It is most certainly not just non-religious people who speak out about the abuse. The speaking out from within has led to some of the changes that have taken place. Moral Mondays is a premiere example of this. And there is more than that going on, but the press coverage is virtually non-existent.

longship

(40,416 posts)
17. I always get perspective from interactions in this forum.
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 09:22 PM
Aug 2013

Thank you Religion forum posters. Learning new stuff is a good thing. Apparently my aged brain still has room for more, no matter how much junk I cram into it.


And thank you all for help making this place like a comfy couch.

IgnostU

(4 posts)
46. Religion IS no good
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 02:34 PM
Aug 2013

There is nothing good about religion , period .

The scariest thing I can think of is to have the leader of our free world believe in it (...)

Maybe our current worldleader may openly become an atheist and change worldhistory forever? One can only hope .

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
47. What a bunch of malarkey.
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 03:05 PM
Aug 2013

The leader of the free world does believe in it. How do you think that impairs his ability to lead?

Don't hold your breath waiting for Obama to declare himself an atheist.

I do think there will come a time when we as a country elect more atheist leaders, however.

 

Manifestor_of_Light

(21,046 posts)
7. Barbecuing Giordano Bruno didn't help.
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 06:19 PM
Aug 2013

Imprisoning Galileo and imprisoning Kepler's mother didn't help either.

And John Calvin, a Protestant, barbecued Michael Servetus for being a Unitarian and opposing infant baptism.

longship

(40,416 posts)
10. William Tyndale, 1536.
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 06:33 PM
Aug 2013

He was strangled and burned at the stake for heresy. How dare he translate the Bible into English! His work substantially lives on in today's King James Bible, which I understand -- no Bible scholar me -- is actually pretty good. If only one could get through the antiquated rhetoric. (I find it totally un-fucking-readable.)

 

Manifestor_of_Light

(21,046 posts)
12. Yep, dangerous guy.
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 07:17 PM
Aug 2013

How dare people read the bible for themselves!!

In an essay by Christopher Hitchens about the translation of Tyndale and the poetry of the King James Bible:

"Though I am sometimes reluctant to admit it, there really is something "timeless" in the Tyndale/King James synthesis. For generations, it provided a common stock of references and allusions, rivaled only by Shakespeare in this respect. It resounded in the minds and memories of literate people, as well as those who acquired it only by listening...A culture that does not possess this common store of image and allegory will be a perilously thin one."

Hitchens also points out that Tyndale translated "Greater love than this hath no man, than that he lay down his life for his friends" as "Greater love than this hath no man, than that a man bestow his life for his friends".... "Far more human and attractive, surely, is Tyndale's warm 'bestow,' which suggests that a life devoted to friendship is a noble thing in itself."

"Those who opposed the translation of the Bible into the vernacular...were afraid that the mystic potency of incantation and ritual would be lost, and that daylight would be let in upon magic...The Tyndale/King James translation, even if all its copies were to be burned, would still live on in our language through its transmission by way of Shakespeare and Milton and Bunyan and Coleridge, and also by way of popular idioms as "fatted calf" and "pearls before swine." It turned out to be rather more than the sum of its ancient predecessors as well as a repository of language which towers over its successors. Its abandonment by the Church of England establishment, which hoped to refill its churches and ended up denuding them, is yet another demonstration that religion is manmade, with inky human fingerprints all over its supposedly inspired and unalterable texts."





longship

(40,416 posts)
14. Wow! What a response!
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 07:27 PM
Aug 2013

Thank you for further enlightening me.


Too many people only see Hitchens as the rabble rouser. He liked to kick some butt, but when he toured the Bible Belt during his God is Not Great book tour, debating theists all along the way, there were always packed houses and, more than once, overflows and added debates. The fact that the opposing debaters willingly agreed to it attests to the fact that in spite of his reputation, Christopher Hitchens was always a polite and gracious person. Listen to his interviews.

He also had a razor sharp wit. And he could turn a dirty limerick with the best of them.

dimbear

(6,271 posts)
18. The gesture of first strangling the toastee is an act of mercy. It was omitted when it was desired
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 09:34 PM
Aug 2013

to make the punishment worse. The very cruelest way of burning someone at the stake is a very slow fire, which effectively parboiled the victim. There were cases where the victims begged for more wood to be added, and were refused.

History of religion. Lots of little details to know.

longship

(40,416 posts)
24. My argument.
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 10:06 PM
Aug 2013

And Dawkins', and Dennett's, and Hitchens', and Harris', and Stenger's, and hopefully all who care, is that this is how religion acts when it has political power.

Wrapping women in horribly big bags. The death penalty for heresy and apostasy. Desecration of other religions' artistic creations (the Bayiman Buddhas!). Or burning Coptic churches in Egypt just these past couple of weeks.

This is how religion acts when it has political power. It has always been this way. It always will be. The Hebrew Bible, especially the Pentateuch, is full of it. Actions are my measure of ethics, not pronouncements from a pulpit of godly authority. Religion has no ethical basis anymore than any other system. In fact, religion has a most bloody history and cancels it for any claim as an ethical framework.

If religion has any ethics at all, it certainly does not come from its beliefs. It comes from ethical people themselves, which would nullify any remaining argument that religion was the source. If only one could demonstrate this, maybe the world would be a better place.

The measure is a person's actions, not their pronouncements.

struggle4progress

(118,282 posts)
21. Bruno actually never did any real science. He was something of a speculative philosopher,
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 09:56 PM
Aug 2013

and he had an unfortunate habit of creating bad feelings wherever he went, leaving behind him a trail of people who were at best indifferent to his fate and at worst actively hostile to him. Bruno's style in dealing with others might be indicated by this obnoxious quote from one of his books (where, being from Nola, he styles himself as the Nolan):

... I care little about Copernicus, said the Nolan, and I care little that you or others understand him but I want to remind you of this alone, that before you come to instruct me another time, study better ...
La Cena de le Ceneri

I don't know why Bruno is sometimes credited with the idea that the stars were merely far-away suns like ours. He probably got the idea from the astronomer Thomas Digges when Bruno visited Oxford. Digges had proposed that to answer the objection (against the Copernican system and his own related proposal to abolish the firmament) that no parallax could be observed for the fixed stars -- such observations were finally performed successfully in the first half of the nineteenth century

Of course, it's disgusting that he was burned. But we don't actually know why he was burned, because almost all records of his seven year trial were lost. His writings do seem to have challenged a number of church doctrines, advocating (in particular) pantheism. Support for Copernican views in unlikely to have been the issue: as the quote above shows, Bruno wasn't much interested in those theories; and more importantly, at the time of Bruno's death, Copernicus' work still circulated freely for decades -- it would not become an object until more than a decade later

struggle4progress

(118,282 posts)
25. The prosecution of Kepler's mother seems to have been initiated by secular authorities
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 10:41 PM
Aug 2013

Of course, it's difficult to look back five hundred years and understand the mindsets then but, although accusations and trials occurred across Europe for several hundred years, the overwhelming majority of cases seem to have been in the Germanic countries between the late 16th and early 17th centuries -- which suggests local factors, such as traditional culture or the Reformation/Counter-Reformation struggles, played a large role

Churchmen, no doubt, could be as ignorant as anyone else, and a combination of secular and religious authority in putting down "dangerous" women would have been especially toxic -- but churchmen could also be as enlightened as anyone:

... The infamous Spanish Inquisition only intervened with secular prosecutions of witches late in the fifteenth century, and by 1522 had limited its involvement. In an outbreak of witch hysteria in the Basque region in 1610-12, the diligent inquisitor Alonso de Salazar Frias declined to prosecute. In what must be regarded as a breakthrough for rational principles of justice, he concluded that there was no concrete evidence of witchery at all: "I have not found the slightest evidence from which to infer that a single act of witchcraft has really occurred." People must not be burned, even if they willingly accuse themselves, in the absence of any trace of a crime having been committed, he declared. No more edicts should be published, moreover, since in the "diseased state of the public mind" they only have harmful effects: "I deduce the importance of silence and reserve from the experience that there were neither witches nor bewitched until they were talked and written about" ...
Witchhunts in the Reformation era

struggle4progress

(118,282 posts)
27. ... During much of his life Galileo was not particularly interested in Copernicanism ...
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 10:54 PM
Aug 2013

... it wasn't until ... his late forties that he got around to advocating the idea... He was warned privately not to pursue the matter ... In 1623, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini became Pope ... Barbarini had met Galileo at a dinner in 1611, where he delighted in the sharp arguments Galileo made to completely destroy those who debated his ideas .... Galileo met with him personally to take up the matter of Copernicanism again ... Barbarini .. granted Galileo to write about the theory ... Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World came out a decade later, and became a huge success ... Then someone noticed ... The advocate for Copernicanism was ... well-spoken, while the one that espoused the Aristotelian geocentric view of the solar system came off as stupid ... In some cases, he even used direct quotes of what the Pope had said. And ... Galileo named the geocentrist 'Simplicio' - the Simpleton ... The friendship that Galileo had enjoyed was broken ... The private warning, and the official Injunction that had been given to him in 1616, were brought forward ... Galileo defended himself with technicalities ... It was not technicalities that saved Galileo, but whatever powerful friends he had left and his own celebrity ... Galileo clung to technicalities ...
Did Galileo get in trouble for being right, or for being a jerk about it?
Esther Inglis-Arkell
9/15/11

LostOne4Ever

(9,288 posts)
22. Im convinced
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 09:58 PM
Aug 2013

That the anti-gay movement hiding its bigotry behind religion is only going to result in more and more young people rejecting religion. Im not really sure if I qualify as the last of Gen X or the first of the millenials myself (born 1982) but the article does a good job on explaining many of my views or religion and their continued endorsement of homophobia just makes me that much more convinced that they are wrong.

It is like religion is against EVERY part of modern society. Evolution, embriology, astro-physics, immunology, sociology, psychology, sociology, meteorology, and even history. Basic astronomy would be on that list had they not been so completely defeated on the shape of the earth and its relation to the sun centuries ago. Science granted humankind two of its greatest wishes of all time, the ability to fly and walking on the moon; yet, still to this very day you have some religions (not all of them but a good many) digging their feet in, closing their eyes, and covering their ears and screaming "NO, I WON'T ACCEPT IT!!!"

<----felt the need to break up my paragraphs but could not think of the right smilely to put here.


But, worse than that in my opinion, they cling to outdated moralities that condone such horrid behavior. How can any generation sit there and watch what is happening in the name of god and religion and not doubt? Maybe they wont lose faith entirely but come to view organized religion as negatively as the article say they (we?) do. From the anti-gay movement here to women getting tried for adultery because they were raped against their will in Afghanistan why shouldn't they/we be cynical?

This is not to say that religion can not and has not done good, but can believers blame millenials for becoming disillusioned (or if it turns out the religion is wrong...enlightened) about religion? As the religious right doubles down on their opposition to marriage equality I foresee more and more people of generation X, Y, and Z rejecting it.

Its funny, but people like Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, the late Jerry Falwell, Bill Donahue, and Fred Phelps could quite possibly be the single greatest evangelicals FOR non-theism that have ever lived.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
33. On the other side of the coin, some religious organizations have been on the
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 12:35 PM
Aug 2013

forefront of the current GLBT civil rights movement. There was recently an article in this group about how these groups have been instrumental in advancing the cause. While I agree that many are leaving organized religious groups because of there stands on some issues (like GLBT rights), other religious groups are stepping forward with a different and clear agenda.

There is such a variety of organizations under the umbrella "religion". To say that religion is against all those things you list is inaccurate at best, deceptive at worst. Whey you say "they", you fail to differentiate between groups or acknowledge the great differences one can find among religious groups.

You make good points about why younger people are leaving fundamentalist churches at this time. I agree that they are disillusioned, even angry. But all the data available indicates that many of these are leaving institutions, but not their beliefs.

We shall see, but I would predict an increase in more liberal/progressive congregations in the near future.

LostOne4Ever

(9,288 posts)
37. You are right there are religious organizations fighting for gay rights
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 04:08 PM
Aug 2013

However, the vast majority of those fighting against it have been cloaking themselves in religion and the arguments against gay rights have been primarily religious.

My post was not so much about casting blame as it was about perception and how that perception will only get reinforced in the future leading to future generations leaving organized religion* behind.

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]cbayer[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]here is such a variety of organizations under the umbrella "religion". To say that religion is against all those things you list is inaccurate at best, deceptive at worst. Whey you say "they", you fail to differentiate between groups or acknowledge the great differences one can find among religious groups.

I was not trying to make a broad generalization so much as showing how it is perceived. Everyone one of the sciences I listed is opposed by religion in some degree or another.

Evolution-vehemently opposed by creationist
Embryology- vehemently opposed by creationist
astro-physics- big bang theory is vehemently opposed by young earth creationist
immunology-opposed by faith healers
Sociology-opposed by religious groups claiming that homosexuality could hurt society
Psychology- opposed by religious groups claiming that homosexuality is a choice
Meteorology-opposed by religious groups claiming that only god can cause climate change
History- Again opposed by religious groups who claim the earth is only 6000 years old
Astronomy-The church vigorously opposed Coppernicus till proven unquestionably wrong


Each and everyone one of these issues has had massive and significant opposition from religion. Not all religions are the same and several do not oppose these things but it can not be denied that many (not all) of those who now support such positions had to be dragged kicking and screaming before they accepted it and that the major source of opposition to all of these things, save meteorology, is religious.

Again, my post is more about perception. The perception is time and time again the opposition to these things is primarily religion. Its gotten to the point that when we hear about some group arguing about any of these things it can almost completely safe to assume it a religious complaint. Whether fair or not, this shows that religion has a serious PR problem.

Like I was alluding to, when some of the greatest dreams of man kind have been accomplished thanks to science, when scientific medicine has greatly increased both our quality of life, how can being seen as the major opposition to scientific progress result in anything but doubt and skepticism?

I didn't differentiate in many of my statements because that is not how it is perceived. I did not mean for it to be an argument against religion. The view is "sigh, yet another religion is opposing science yet again." I even added in a section to show that I know that not all religions are doing this when I said:

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Lost[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Science granted humankind two of its greatest wishes of all time, the ability to fly and walking on the moon; yet, still to this very day you have some religions (not all of them but a good many) digging their feet in, closing their eyes, and covering their ears and screaming "NO, I WON'T ACCEPT IT!!!"

and

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]This is not to say that religion can not and has not done good, but can believers blame millenials for becoming disillusioned (or if it turns out the religion is wrong...enlightened) about religion?

I was trying to acknowledge the very things you are pointing out: That this is not true about all religions.

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]cbayer[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]But all the data available indicates that many of these are leaving institutions, but not their beliefs.

I agree. This is why I specifically said organized religion at one point.

Some will move on to more liberal/progressive churches, other will keep their religion but throw away the church feeling that they are the best one to interpet god's message to them specifically. Some might throw away their religion for a new one or a type of deism or spirituality; and finally, others will throw religion away altogether.

No matter which happens, I see it as increasing the religious diversity of the country and increasing the support for secular government.



*Lets me say that im using the term organized religion very loosely and am mainly referring to conservative evangelical churches, the RCC, and some mainstream churches when I mention it.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
40. Excellent clarification and I don't disagree with most of what you say.
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 04:49 PM
Aug 2013

What objections tend to be about lumping and being careless about being too inclusive.

I believe that progressive/liberal religious organizations and individuals are in the best position to push back against the religious right. They don't get much press and I try to promote and support them to the extent I can.

When we don't differentiate, or when people take the position that all religion is bad (e.g. Hitchens - "Religion poisons everything&quot , I think we undermine the very causes that we are all fighting for. And when that happens, the divisiveness plays right into the hands of our opponents.

LostOne4Ever

(9,288 posts)
41. Thanks
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 05:16 PM
Aug 2013

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]I believe that progressive/liberal religious organizations and individuals are in the best position to push back against the religious right. They don't get much press and I try to promote and support them to the extent I can.

This is probably the single best way for religion to fix its image. It needs to be seen as a major player standing up against the religious right.

However, perception is everything and for whatever reason the main groups *I* see standing up against homophobia are secular. Being political and having seen the articles both here and in some niche news outlets I know there is a religious left standing up for marriage equality and equal rights but they are almost invisible in the mainstream.

I don't know why this is, but the voice of liberal religions just does not come up much unless you are looking for it directly and as indifferent as my generation (I guess its mine according to wikipedia....though I still see myself more as gen X) is toward politics I don't think we are going to hear them.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
42. I think that is beginning to happen and
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 05:49 PM
Aug 2013

it's one of the reasons that I often react strongly to anti-theists who attack all things religious. There is much work to be done and those that are doing it need support, not derision.

Moral Mondays is getting a fair amount of press, and that's good. There appear to be a growing number of interfaith (often including non-believers) organizations that are fighting for progressive/liberal causes. Religious justifications for LGBT civil rights and women's rights over their own bodies are being heard more often.

But you are right, the media doesn't cover this much. That's why I post about it here. It's my opportunity to spread the word, even though my soap box is not very big.

One last point. The damage that the religious right has done to religion in general is massive. They completely controlled the message and, as a result, some progressive/liberal people think they represent christians in general. They don't.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
29. Does any real harm come from believing things that are untrue?
Mon Aug 19, 2013, 11:25 PM
Aug 2013

Does walking on the opposite side of the road to avoid breaking your mother's back by stepping on a crack really hurt anything? It may be good exercise.

I don't see how conjuring up a witch's brew now and again really hurts anybody, unless, of course you are a blind newt.

How is anybody really harmed by believing that the universe is only 6000 years old?

Is it really a problem to put a sick child "in God's hands" instead of using the best medicine has to offer us?

How is anybody actually harmed if I declare my own prejudices and beliefs are validated by a holy book and everyone else is invalid?

So what if I believe that Hurricane Katrina was the result of too many gay parades? The same number of people died regardless of what I believe, so it doesn't really hurt anything.

If I believe a volcano erupted because somebody angered the volcano god, what's the problem? The volcano went off either way.

I don't see where believing nonsense actually causes a problem.

LostOne4Ever

(9,288 posts)
31. Sometimes, they do
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 02:59 AM
Aug 2013

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]BlueStreak[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Does walking on the opposite side of the road to avoid breaking your mother's back by stepping on a crack really hurt anything? It may be good exercise.

If a kid is riding a bike falls and hits his head on the concrete and you wont go near him to help because of an irrational fear of cracks...yeah it can.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]I don't see how conjuring up a witch's brew now and again really hurts anybody, unless, of course you are a blind newt.

If the brew is poisonous or causes an allergic reaction it could easily hurt someone.


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]How is anybody really harmed by believing that the universe is only 6000 years old?

If they teach their kids that and it keeps them from getting into a good school it can be very harmful.


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Is it really a problem to put a sick child "in God's hands" instead of using the best medicine has to offer us?

Tell that to all the dead children who died because of faith healing.


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]How is anybody actually harmed if I declare my own prejudices and beliefs are validated by a holy book and everyone else is invalid?

Depends. If you use that book to try and pass laws that persecute certain groups it can be very problematic.


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]So what if I believe that Hurricane Katrina was the result of too many gay parades? The same number of people died regardless of what I believe, so it doesn't really hurt anything.

If someone believed that I would imagine they would then try and save people by stopping gay pride parades and stripping people of a right because of an irrational belief.


[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]If I believe a volcano erupted because somebody angered the volcano god, what's the problem? The volcano went off either way.

Again, a person who believes that would try to prevent future eruptions by keeping others from angering the volcano leading to rights being stripped from people because of an irrational belief...if they don't throw those people into the volcano itself.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]I don't see where believing nonsense actually causes a problem.

Believing in nonsense hurt quite a few people in Salem Mass. back in the late 1600's if i recall correctly.

Its nice to think having these type of beliefs won't hurt anyone else, but that is simply just not true. No one can see the future and there are variety of ways that an irrational belief can become harmful.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
34. I suspect you meant this sarcastically, and you make some good points.
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 12:39 PM
Aug 2013

Of course there is harm in some beliefs. If those beliefs tread on the rights of others or cause one to proceed in a way that puts yourself or others at risk, then there is clearly harm.

But your question could be asked about the kinds of things that many religious people believe and the answer would be no, they do not cause any harm.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
38. Not sarcastic. Sometimes it is helpful to look at an issue from the opposite perspective
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 04:21 PM
Aug 2013

I think it is intrinsically harmful to believe in things that are not true, but I wondered if any real harm is done.

Obviously there is real harm in some cases.

Moreover, I believe truth is better than nonsense, even if one cannot account for specific damage resulting from nonsense.

Having said that, there will always be a certain set of "unknowables" that will always be a matter of faith/opinion. In these cases, I believe it is better to admit they are unknowable rather than to claim to have some imaginary, unseen, yet certain answer. But I can accept religion in that role. The real problem with today's most vile religions is their insistence on nonsense explanations for things that have been "knowable" to a reasonable certainty for decades or even centuries.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
39. I agree with most of what you say.
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 04:43 PM
Aug 2013

When people cling to ideas despite clear evidence that it's just not true, like creationism, I think there is clearly the potential for damage. If you believe in creationism and just keep it to yourself, I don't see much harm. But if you insist that schools teach it as science, harm is clear.

But I also agree that there is much that is not known and may be things which will never be known. Those that insist they know something, like there is or is not a god, really have no evidence to support them.

2ndAmForComputers

(3,527 posts)
43. Two words: faith healing.
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 12:31 PM
Aug 2013

Actually, one more: homeopathy.

I could come up with more, but I'm kinda lazy right now.

 

Manifestor_of_Light

(21,046 posts)
30. Putting a sick child in God's hands could kill him.
Tue Aug 20, 2013, 01:15 AM
Aug 2013

Christian Scientist parents are often prosecuted for manslaughter, for not seeking medical care for a sick child that dies from that lack of care. Oftentimes, it is juvenile diabetes but can be other illnesses too.


http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm
Christian Science children have died and continue to die of diabetes, ruptured appendixes, measles, diphtheria, blood poisoning, cancer, and other illnesses that are curable or treatable with modern medicine.

Also, keeping your child from the outside world because it's "evil" means that when your child grows up he or she will have no way to deal with people from other backgrounds, making friends, making choices, or know how to deal with adolescence. That is doing a huge disservice. I have read about a girl who was a devout Christian who had been sheltered from the world. She went away to college. She came home for Thanksgiving weekend and hanged herself because she didn't know how to handle the responsibility of living in a secular world.

If you tell your child the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and Santa are all real, what makes you think your kids will believe you when you tell them Jesus is real? You can't see Jesus either.


IgnostU

(4 posts)
44. common sense
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 02:12 PM
Aug 2013

Where religion gives outdated answers and obscures and is anti common sense , the new generation of people have no problem finding the right /sensible answers just by observing the world around them and using commonly accessible information systems.

To have someone tell you to give up reasoning and start using a book that is hundreds of years old makes no sense .

Religion is not fit for brainiacs but for the "challenged'

It's high time we stomp out religion worldwide.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
45. Religion is not fit for brainiacs but for the "challenged"?
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 02:27 PM
Aug 2013

What an offensive and completely inaccurate thing to say.

Religion isn't going anywhere, but good luck on your crusading mission.

Welcome to DU, I guess.

longship

(40,416 posts)
49. I think your position and your advocacy have been falsified.
Wed Aug 21, 2013, 05:03 PM
Aug 2013

I am an adherent to the theory of religion advocated by Dawkins and Dennett. Both have argued that it's likely memetic and possibly actually genetic. If that is true, both your claim that religion is not fit for brainiacs and your prescription it's high time we stomp out religion worldwide are both non-starters.

I prefer Dennett's prescription. Eliminating religion will likely never happen. Instead, we would prefer it to evolve into avirulence, a less toxic (so to speak) form.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»‘It’s not that Christiani...