Atheism dropping in Russia

Onesimus

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2012/10/17/russia-the-orthodox-spring/

88% of the population professes to believe in God, while the number of agnostics and atheists is constantly dropping: a study examines religion’s comeback in former kingdom of State atheism.

Sounds like Russia experienced their drop in Church attendance long before Ireland.

ehcocmeo

The Orthodox Church in Russia is growing. Not surprising it was essential to what Russia is.

totus tuus

In contrast the percentage of Protestant Americans is in steep decline, and atheism on the rise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/us/study-finds-that-percentage-of-protestant-americans-is-declining.html?_r=0

Onesimus

totus tuus wrote: »

In contrast the percentage of Protestant Americans is in steep decline, and atheism on the rise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/us/study-finds-that-percentage-of-protestant-americans-is-declining.html?_r=0

Yeah there seems to be a lot of stuff in American media lately about how protestatism leads to atheism. Kinda odd.

philologos

totus tuus wrote: »

In contrast the percentage of Protestant Americans is in steep decline, and atheism on the rise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/us/study-finds-that-percentage-of-protestant-americans-is-declining.html?_r=0

That article doesn't say atheism is on the rise.

The Pew report found that even among Americans who claimed no religion, few qualified as purely secular. Two-thirds say they still believe in God, and one-fifth say they pray every day. Only 12 percent of the religiously unaffiliated group said they were atheists and 17 percent agnostic.

So of the nones, actually only a minority of those are atheists.

Another explanation is the decline of denominationalism. Many people of reformed belief wouldn't call themselves Protestants any longer. Rather people are leaning more and more to simply calling themselves Christians.

It's also important to note that numerically the number of those calling themselves Protestants in the US has not declined, rather the percentage has. At the end of your article you'll see this correction:

A headline on Wednesday about a report by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life outlining changes in Americans’ religious affiliations misstated a trend. The percentage of those calling themselves Protestants has sharply declined, not the number of those calling themselves Protestants.

totus tuus

Michael Voris latest video on the subject released a few days ago! In the video he speaks about protestantism and not individual protestants!

Peregrinus

With all due respect to Philologos, I don't think the Pew Forum report is counting non-denominational Christians here. The 20% figure breaks down into 6% who say they are atheist or agnostic, and 14% who say they have "no religion", "no particular religion" or "no religious preference". I'd be surprised if many non-denominational Christians characterised themselves in that way. It's more likely that the 14% is composed of people who are so indifferent to religious questions that they do not classify themselves even as atheist or agnostic, plus people who consider themselves to be spiritual in one way or another but who have no connection to any religious congregation or community. 72% of the 14% attend worship seldom or never; only 5% of the 14% (that's 0.7% of the population as a whole) attend worship weekly (and I'm guessing they go with partners or family). That, too, suggests that there are not many non-denominational Christians in this cohort.

The Pew Forum, for what it's worth classifies nondenominational Christians as "Protestant". This may well irritate nondenominational Christians, who presumably call themselves "nondenominational" because they reject the label "Protestant", but all the nondenominational Christians that I am familiar with (which, admittedly, is not very many) have a theology which is fairly characteristically Protestant. My impression - I'll be glad to be corrected by those who know better - is that the defining characteristic of nondenominational churches is that the local congregation has no formal, institutional links with a wider body which exercises oversight or leadership.

pauldla

Interestingly, gazeta.ru has a story on the same poll by Levada, but they say that the number of atheists has remained stable, at 5%. It states that the number who consider themselves agnostic has dropped, though.

http://en.gazeta.ru/news/2012/10/11/a_4808977.shtml

philologos

Peregrinus: take a look at this article on the subject:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/10/11/6-reflections-on-protestant-decline-in-america/

Counting Protestants is more difficult due to more and more identifying as Christian not Protestant even if they have reformed belief. This IMO is a good thing. Protestant is a term designed in respect to Roman Catholicism. All the reformers were were Christians standing up for the Biblical gospel in the face of corruption.

There are people entirely disallusioned by Christianity but a tiny minority of the nones are actually atheists even according to the New York Times article that was posted.

I think you've misinterpreted what I was saying.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

Peregrinus: take a look at this article on the subject:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/10/11/6-reflections-on-protestant-decline-in-america/

Counting Protestants is more difficult due to more and more identifying as Christian not Protestant even if they have reformed belief. This IMO is a good thing. Protestant is a term designed in respect to Roman Catholicism. All the reformers were were Christians standing up for the Biblical gospel in the face of corruption.

There are people entirely disallusioned by Christianity but a tiny minority of the bones are actually atheists even according to the New York Times article that was posted.

I think you've misinterpreted what I was saying.

If I did, I apologise.

I think a key to understanding this is that, although the Pew Forum report is billed as a survey of “religious identification”, the fact that x% of the survey population is described in the report as “Protestant” doesn’t mean that they identify themselves as Protestant. The survey methodology is to ask them to name their church, and the Pew classifies it as Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox (and indeed subclassifies it as, e.g., “Protestant, Evangelical, Nondenominational charismatic” or “Protestant, mainline, Anabaptist” or whatever. So if you tell Pew that you’re a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, say, then you’re classified as “Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical tradition”; if you tell them you’re with the Disciples of Christ then you’re “Protestant, Restorationist, mainline tradition”. These may or may not be labels that you would chose for yourself, or that you would accept if offered, but you don’t get asked.

Pew treats nondenominational congregations as a subclassification of Protestantism, and further analyses them into evangelical and mainline.

Pew also has an “Other Christian” classification for groups and movements which are (in Pew’s view) neither Protestant evangelical nor Protestant mainline nor Catholic nor “historically Black” nor Orthodox nor JW nor Mormon. It’s a tiny group, 0.3% of the population, according to Pew, and it’s made up of “metaphysical” and “other” groups, the “metaphysical” being further analysed into “spiritualist”, “unity” and “other metaphysical”.

My point here is not that Pew is correct to classify nondenominational churches as Protestant; it’s just that they do classify them as Protestant, and not as “unaffiliated”. Hence non-denominational Christians are not turning up in Pew’s 20% reported figure for the religiously unaffiliated; they’re turning up in the 48% reported figure for Protestants. Consequentle the growth in the unaffiliated figure is not accounted for by a growth in nondenominational Christians.

There could, I suppose, be nondenominational Christians in the unaffiliated group in the sense that there could be people whose spirituality is Christian, but who have no connection to or participation in any congregation or community. But members of nondenominational churches and congregations are not there.

It’s true, though, that only a minority of the unaffiliated are either atheist or agnostic; 12% (self-)identify as atheist,. 17% as agnostic and the remaining 71% as “nothing in particular”. Furthermore, 42% of them say that they are neither spiritual nor religious, leaving 58% who consider themselves to be spiritual, or religious, or both. And 68% of the unaffiliated group say that they believe “in God or a Universal Spirit” (including, interestingly, 38% of the atheist/agnostic group).

As to your wider point on the use of the term “Protestant”, I think I agree with you. For nearly the past 500 years Western Christians have defined and understood themselves in opposition to other western Christians. What defines Protestants is that they protest - originally against the Edict of Worms but, after that went away, against the Errors Of Rome generally. And while the word “Catholic” originally meant the very opposite of people who defined and understood themselves in opposition to other Christians, that’s effectively what it has meant since the Reformation. We are (thankfully) beginning to escape from this paradigm now.

robindch

Frankly, this scares me.

For some years, Putin has been providing the church with more resources, supportive laws, and, from last month, largely unfettered access to the country's children via the state's new requirement for mandatory classes in religion. In return for this, the Russian orthodox church is backing United Russia's aggressive nationalist and homophobic policies to the hilt, and with the helpfully transmitted blessing of the orthodox deity. Following the Pussy Riot trial, Putin is also mulling over a new blasphemy law and this appears likely to be passed into the statue book by his supine parliament later this year and will probably be used to prohibit an even greater range of speech than is already illegal.

The Russian state apparatus and Russian state church generally are locked in a rather chilling embrace intended to coerce from Russia's citizens the respect -- cowed will do fine -- that neither organization can acquire freely. And it's a debilitating embrace from which any of the three are likely to recover any time soon.

Slav

robindch wrote: »

Frankly, this scares me.

For some years, Putin has been providing the church withmore resources, supportive laws, and, from last month, largely unfettered access to the country's children via the state's new requirement for mandatory classes in religion.

Oh well, if only that course was available here instead of this "hi from the 19th century" religious education we have in Ireland I would swap immediately and without any hesitation. Especially when it's not indoctrination into religion but a cultural course. Especially when you can choose between different religions or choose a religion-neutral course. Especially when you can have Secular Ethics as one of the options.

I went through some of the textbooks by the way some time ago. The Islam one is very good, the one on Orthodoxy is just brilliant. The Secular Ethics is probably a bit boring for ten year olds but it's quite good too. I tell you many adults would seriously benefit from these books, it would fill many gaps in their education.

The reason for introducing those courses into school curriculum is, surprisingly, not evil Putin and not the evil ROC taking over the Russians. Back in the USSR only few decades ago sectarian differences rarely caused any problems. The percentage of atheists was way greater then it is now, if someone practices a religion they usually did it more or less privately. Despite being from different cultural background people felt more united in that developing soviet culture. With the collapse of the USSR and all the soviet culture the sectarian differences started to play more and more important role. Now Russian Federation is still a multiethnic and multicultural country but the current state of inter-cultural affairs can only be described as catastrophic. For example an Avar coming to Moscow from some rural area in Dagestan is not treated as a fellow citizen by many local slavic muscovites but more like a foreigner and a rather unwanted one. The locals don't know and don't understand the culture of Dagestan people; in return they, especially the young generation, rarely know and understand the culture of locals. The society is divided on cultural and sectarian grounds and there are signs of very serious tension now. Cultural ignorance is the main cause of xenophobia in modern Russia and this cultural religious education is just a part of homeland security measures. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with Putin and his evil plans to destroy the world.

Another reason why specifically a course on Orthodoxy might be beneficial is Russian literature. In the following years those students will study N.Gogol M.Saltykov-Shchedrin, F.Dostoevsky, M.Bulgakov - it's way easier to understand them if you have some knowledge of Orthodox culture. Without that knowledge the depth of personal drama of L.Tolstoy would remain hidden. Finally, without that knowledge many aspects and reasons for the Russian Revolution would remain unknown too. Overall I see the course to be very useful and fit very well in school humanitarian education. Unfortunately IMO during the past few years the standards of second level education in Russia are in decline but those religion and secular ethics courses are a rare exception.

BTW the picture on that link, with a guy wearing epitrachil in a classroom, is misleading. There will be no priest, mullahs or rabbes in school; all courses will be thought by normal school teachers. The school and Church in RF are separated de jure and de facto.

robindch

Slav wrote: »

Especially when you can have Secular Ethics as one of the options.

I agree entirely: secular ethics is fine. In fact, hell, the country is so massively corrupt at every level, it needs a state-wide ethical enema delivered prontissimo. What it does not need is the other option in that religion course -- more of the frigid, authoritarian pataternalism that Putin and his friends in the ROC have in mind.

Slav wrote: »

all courses will be thought by normal school teachers. The school and Church in RF are separated de jure and de facto.

You know as well as I do that paper law in Russia -- a grim and unhappy thing at the best of times -- and what happens to the tovarish on the street, are two different things and that the legal system will always do the unwritten bidding of United Russia, its owners. And if UR wants to put priests in classrooms -- which they are doing in Siberia at least -- they will do so and the written law can go hang itself.

BTW, I dropped into a secondary school in Siberia a few months back and took a bunch of photos of United Russia's political ads that were plastered all over the foyer. I'm sure there's a law against political parties advertizing in schools, but who's going to be brave enough to report that to the police, and will the police be brave enough to prosecute their owners; and if it went to court, would a judge convict a UR chinovnik, and if the judge didn't, would anybody be brave enough to complain about the abuse of justice? I rather doubt it.

BTW, the New York Times noted the growing affection between Putin and his mates across the square:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/world/europe/russians-see-orthodox-church-and-state-come-closer.html

philologos

robindch: are you opposed to people having a choice between the foundations of religion, fundamentals of public ethics, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism? I fail to see what your issue is.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I fail to see what your issue is.

I am opposed to a state -- superficially secular and democratic, but practically non-secular and slowly returning towards totalitarianism -- which, as I said above, is providing unfettered access for priests and other religious to the impressionable, gullible, unformed minds of innocent children who have no defenses against what's being presented to them as true, and who are not taught how to defend themselves.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

I am opposed to a state -- superficially secular and democratic, but practically non-secular and slowly returning towards totalitarianism -- which, as I said above, is providing unfettered access for priests and other religious to the impressionable, gullible, unformed minds of innocent children who have no defenses against what's being presented to them as true, and who are not taught how to defend themselves.

It isn't though. People have a clear choice of what to study from Judaism to public ethics.

You're really misrepresenting what seems to be actually the case from reading up on it.