Dawkins strips away religion's dead wood

You can choose whether or not to be open or closed minded. That's entirely up to you.

Jakkass wrote: »

I remember PDN had a quote from the 1960's that suggested that religion would be truly gone by the 1980's apart from a small cluster of believers.

I'm not making any predictions as to exact times or exact numbers. That is obviously where people will run into problems (you said religious numbers would be 70%, ha they are currently at 74% you lose!)

Neither am I saying this is a trend that will not stop. As I said I can imagine many senarios where various events will trigger a revival of religious uptake. A swine flu out break could be some such event.

But in the general scheme I see nothing that is going to reverse the slow general decline of religious belief. That is possibly due to my lack of imagination, and I'm open to suggestions or evidence to the contrary.

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me continue on your post about "progressively". You do realise that progressive is at the eyes of the beholder, as is "moving forward".

Yes, and obviously I'm using a standard that I see as being progressive. Some religious people might view say a world free of disease and hunger yet absent of religious faith as a literal hell on Earth. As you say each person has different views as to what progress is. You can disagree with this if you like, though I would of course expect you to put forward your own measurements of progress.

Jakkass wrote: »

I consider Christianisation to be progressive in terms of how it provokes us to act towards one another.

I think that is an unrealistic idealised version of Christianiation. Possibly if everyone was a perfect Christian this would greatly improve how we treat each other but personally I view that as a whole unatainable goal based on how humans are. History has shown how far Christian nations fall from any ideals of Christianity.

Anarchists and Communists say the same thing about their ideologies, and they are correct if you could actually get everyone to follow them. But there are such flaws with this faith in humanity that I see it as impractical to the point of irrelevance.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's an ideology that is forward thinking. That's my honest view on it.

Again I would disagree with that. It is an ideology that at its core requires the acceptance if unconfirmable belief in a supernatural element and a shared interpretation of said agents wishes.

This is a key flaw in Christianity, it is impossible to determine in any meaningful, external way, if we are doing things correctly according to said deity. And Christians have gone to war over these issues. It is all very well for Christians to say that fundamentally we all hold to the same core principles, but when you get down to it what Christians can actually manage to agree on (love each other, love God) are so abstract in substance that they hold very little weight in the real world - ok, while we are loving everyone do we go to war with Germany or not?. Ask 10 Christians you will get 10 answers, which is fine (ask 10 atheists you may well get 10 answers), but the problem comes when all 10 believe they are correctly interpreting the infaliable word of God. It then becomes much less about the merits of a particular action and more on whether or not the person has correctly represented God.

And this is before we have even determine independently of individual faith if there is actual a God we should be listening to in the first place. There is a dangerous assumption of the authority of these doctrines and dogmas, an implicit belief that if interpreted correctly they will actually lead us right. Since this cannot be demonstrated this belief itself is foolish, never mind if you are correctly interpreting it.

But anywhoo, that is my little rant about the down side of a society based around supernatural belief and the authority of a god.

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course your view that Christianity is regressive is a product of your atheism and mine is the product of Christianity.

Well even if I was a Christian I would hope I would recognise, purely on principle of being unable to know for certain if God exists or if I am interpreting him correctly, the inherient flaw in putting faith in shared religious belief to lead us on the straight and narrow.

Jakkass wrote: »

As such what use is waffling on about "progression", "regression", "forward" or "backward" going to be for any of us? You have to admit these terms can be thrown around like a ragdoll in discussions.

Well to quote the doctor, I'm showing you mine you show me yours. I have no issue debating whether or not a move in one direction is progressive or regressive. I certain don't think either of us should stop using these terms simple because the other might disagree. By all means disagree.

And I'm sure we share common ideas about what is progressive, increase in life expectancy or education levels for example, or access to information.

Jakkass wrote: »

Well Wicknight, you yourself conceded that there was a rise in religious belief worldwide a few posts ago.

You will notice I never claimed otherwise.

I have always mentioned the Western world precisely because I know you guys like mentioning how Christianity is on the rise in Africa and China. You don't need to tell me this

My point was from the very beginning that this rise is not relevant to the over all point being discussed which is the free and open discussion (including ridicule) of religious and supernatural beliefs within Western society (with its access to information and higher education levels) effects a decrease in religious membership.

Since this is not happening in places like China or Africa, where education levels are low and access to information is limited, these areas are less relevant to the discussion.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why is a pandemic necessary?

Because it strips back a lot of the "progression" that I see as leading to all this, such as commuication channels and the free movement of ideas. It is harder for Dawkins to launch a new book if everyone is under house quarantein.

Jakkass wrote: »

If that isn't revival compared to contemporary Christianity there I don't know what is. I have no reason to assume that this isn't possible anywhere else in the world.

I'm not sure how you equate the late 16th century with modern Europe or America.

Jakkass wrote: »

How come increases of living standards in some areas of the world have also resulted in Christianisation if it is true that increasing standards, increasing education and science leads to the fall of organised religion. Surely the USA or South Korea should cause you to think twice about that notion.

Yes but again you are confusing an increase in fundamentalism with an increase in religious faith in general. In both the USA and South Korea faith and practice around organised religion is falling and it has been for most of the 20th century.

What you see is individual religions making gains or loses in the ever decreasing set of religious people.

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't the case for all free societies.

It is the case for most of them. But of course factors come into play. It is not a universal rule, simply a trend.

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but people didn't adhere to organised religion before missionaries started to arrive there.

I'm not sure that is true. Buddaism and Taoism have been in Korea since the 9th century and were often associated with the official governments

Jakkass wrote: »

Therefore it shows that in free societies that religion can increase and religion can have it's place. You seem to suggest that Christianity is opposed to freedom when it actually encourages freedom.

It is not really anything to do with what Christianity is opposed to or not, and everything to do with how convincing Christianity is to well educated learned people with easy access to information and other ideas.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how education is a hindrance, because well I don't have much fear that my faith will be destroyed by the time I graduate from university.

But you are already a believer, and it is relatively easy to see how your belief shapes your education rather than the other way around.

For example would you have been as open to Christianity if you knew all the flaws in arguments such as Lewis's (something someone who has studied say the philosophy of science would naturally recognise) apologetics before you picked up a Bible or Mere Christianity?

This may not be that relevant to our generation, but it will be for the next generation, and the one after that, when more and more students are exposed to different arguments and debates at earlier ages.

Jakkass wrote: »

Most of the reasons you give for people being more likely to reject religion are ultimately inaccurate. Again, you could say that people studying science are less likely to have faith. I know several people at my university who are Christians some of them are doing phD's in biology, some of them are starting off in science degrees.

Well that is some what antidotal. There have been tons of surveys that demonstrate a huge move towards atheism and the rejection of organised religion among trained scientists, far out of wack with figures from the mainstream of society. You are far far more likely to say you follow no religion if you are a trained scientists than if you are a member of another profession or skill set.

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing that would stop healthy faith forming in a society like ours if we decide to teach it the right way.

Well the evidence would suggest otherwise.


I will get to the Apologetics tomorrow if I can.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not making any predictions as to exact times or exact numbers. That is obviously where people will run into problems (you said religious numbers would be 70%, ha they are currently at 74% you lose!)

Yes, but you have to admit the example that PDN had quoted, and hopefully he will remember this as it was on his signature, was grossly inaccurate. Saying that there would be only very small groups of believers huddled together for hope of survival. This isn't the case nor is it likely to be the case ever.

Wicknight wrote: »

Neither am I saying this is a trend that will not stop. As I said I can imagine many senarios where various events will trigger a revival of religious uptake. A swine flu out break could be some such event.

Religious revivals have happened in the past without an outbreak of disease. I could also see how that could discourage religion from arising too.

Wicknight wrote: »

But in the general scheme I see nothing that is going to reverse the slow general decline of religious belief. That is possibly due to my lack of imagination, and I'm open to suggestions or evidence to the contrary.

I think it would be definitely due to your lack of imagination. It doesn't take much thought to imagine models based on past events by which this could happen. As I say 17% church attendance in the USA on arrival of colonialism it has strengthened considerably since then.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think that is an unrealistic idealised version of Christianiation. Possibly if everyone was a perfect Christian this would greatly improve how we treat each other but personally I view that as a whole unatainable goal based on how humans are. History has shown how far Christian nations fall from any ideals of Christianity.

Anarchists and Communists say the same thing about their ideologies, and they are correct if you could actually get everyone to follow them. But there are such flaws with this faith in humanity that I see it as impractical to the point of irrelevance.

I guess every man has to have a cause. I didn't mean that Christianity had to be necessarily a part of State ideology but rather that Christianity is held by a certain degree in the populace.

Wicknight wrote: »

This is a key flaw in Christianity, it is impossible to determine in any meaningful, external way, if we are doing things correctly according to said deity. And Christians have gone to war over these issues. It is all very well for Christians to say that fundamentally we all hold to the same core principles, but when you get down to it what Christians can actually manage to agree on (love each other, love God) are so abstract in substance that they hold very little weight in the real world - ok, while we are loving everyone do we go to war with Germany or not?. Ask 10 Christians you will get 10 answers, which is fine (ask 10 atheists you may well get 10 answers), but the problem comes when all 10 believe they are correctly interpreting the infaliable word of God. It then becomes much less about the merits of a particular action and more on whether or not the person has correctly represented God.

Interesting, in practice I find that my moral beliefs are very similar to those who I have spoken to concerning Christianity and compared to secular models of moral cohesion Christianity is far superior even if there is room for difference on some issues. I don't think that you will get 10 answers, you may well get 3 or 4 in most situations due to the general cohesion that exists, but also due to any remaining ambiguity that also exists.

As for going to war with x, y and z I personally hold to political pacifism. This is a relatively recent development in my political views but I cannot feel that war is justified given my other beliefs concerning human life.

Even if I fail in Christian teachings, I aim to try and follow Christ in my daily life. I feel I have made a bit of progress but this is a mission that is going to take my entire lifetime.

Wicknight wrote: »

And this is before we have even determine independently of individual faith if there is actual a God we should be listening to in the first place. There is a dangerous assumption of the authority of these doctrines and dogmas, an implicit belief that if interpreted correctly they will actually lead us right. Since this cannot be demonstrated this belief itself is foolish, never mind if you are correctly interpreting it.

I really don't think it is that dangerous given the weight of theology we have concerning Christian moral law. It is by and large clarified by the text itself if one looks into it enough. However there isn't this always this guarantee I guess.

Wicknight wrote: »

But anywhoo, that is my little rant about the down side of a society based around supernatural belief and the authority of a god.

Indeed, thank you for sharing.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well even if I was a Christian I would hope I would recognise, purely on principle of being unable to know for certain if God exists or if I am interpreting him correctly, the inherient flaw in putting faith in shared religious belief to lead us on the straight and narrow.

Even if one is to consider it flawed, I really do not consider it as flawed as trying to come up with entirely secular notions on morality that are doomed to failure in pluralistic societies. This is basically one of the main challenges in Habermas' Inclusion of the Other. His conclusion concerning Islam in Europe is that any moral basis to do with a higher power, or with metaphysics cannot be considered in any moral agreement due to the fact that they are no longer politically fashionable. This doesn't help to include the other at all in all actuality though.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well to quote the doctor, I'm showing you mine you show me yours. I have no issue debating whether or not a move in one direction is progressive or regressive. I certain don't think either of us should stop using these terms simple because the other might disagree. By all means disagree.

Yes fair enough, I was merely demonstrating a point.

Wicknight wrote: »

And I'm sure we share common ideas about what is progressive, increase in life expectancy or education levels for example, or access to information.

I'm sure we do, but there are also issues that we disagree on by and large too. Such is the nature of humanity though.

Wicknight wrote: »

My point was from the very beginning that this rise is not relevant to the over all point being discussed which is the free and open discussion (including ridicule) of religious and supernatural beliefs within Western society (with its access to information and higher education levels) effects a decrease in religious membership.

Yes, as I say. Ridicule all you want, as long as atheism and agnosticism is also open and subject to ridicule also. I have no evidence to suggest that information or education has any impact on religiosity as such I find it pointless to suggest so. I am not able to see this pattern in my own life currently even when I am subject to the same level of education as everyone else and when I have been graced with a somewhat decent level of intelligence.

Wicknight wrote: »

Since this is not happening in places like China or Africa, where education levels are low and access to information is limited, these areas are less relevant to the discussion.

There is no evidence that this in actuality affects religiosity.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not sure how you equate the late 16th century with modern Europe or America.

18th century? There have been more modern revivals in the USA also.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but again you are confusing an increase in fundamentalism with an increase in religious faith in general. In both the USA and South Korea faith and practice around organised religion is falling and it has been for most of the 20th century.

Of course I am not. There has been huge growth in South Korea in recent years in the general population. Christianity is now the first largest faith group (28%) and has grown rapidly in the 20th century. There is no evidence that it has been falling for most of the 20th century in either country. The only example I can think is the USA which has fallen between the 1980's and present. Again the rise and fall of disbelief is at work. Nothing special or unusual.

Wicknight wrote: »

What you see is individual religions making gains or loses in the ever decreasing set of religious people.

Again, there is no evidence of this in the case of South Korea.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not sure that is true. Buddaism and Taoism have been in Korea since the 9th century and were often associated with the official governments

Yes, but at the time of the conversion by missionaries which started at it's very earliest at the turn of the century, and which was in it's main stage during the 1950's many wouldn't have identified with a religion at all then either. It's nothing new that atheists exist in countries like these it's been a common trend in South East Asia for a while.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not really anything to do with what Christianity is opposed to or not, and everything to do with how convincing Christianity is to well educated learned people with easy access to information and other ideas.

I don't think it's about education at all. Many have converted to Christianity while at third level education. PDN has posted here about educated Chinese converting to Christianity. Information has very little to do with it from what I can assess.

Wicknight wrote: »

But you are already a believer, and it is relatively easy to see how your belief shapes your education rather than the other way around.

So? Surely this "education" should be threatening my faith? It really isn't, why is that? As I say. I'm of above average intelligence, and I am gaining just as much new information than the other. What is wrong with me compared to other people in your eyes that I am different?

Wicknight wrote: »

For example would you have been as open to Christianity if you knew all the flaws in arguments such as Lewis's (something someone who has studied say the philosophy of science would naturally recognise) apologetics before you picked up a Bible or Mere Christianity?

I've read materials from secular humanists too throughout being educated. I even found Friedrich Nietzsche facinating for a while. I'm afraid it did nothing for me ultimately though.

Wicknight wrote: »

This may not be that relevant to our generation, but it will be for the next generation, and the one after that, when more and more students are exposed to different arguments and debates at earlier ages.

Some nations are more advanced to us in secular trends and they have already been through this process. Many have returned to Christianity particularly of non-religious backgrounds in the USA. I don't feel that it will be any different or that Christianity will be annihilated in any meaningful respect. Seriously. Nietzsche thought the exact same as you. God is dead, there is no role for Him in public life any more, give up. God won't guide you, God won't protect you. Obviously this has been proven to be false, there was very much a role for Him in Germany and in Europe at the time and there still is. The annihilation never happened.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that is some what antidotal. There have been tons of surveys that demonstrate a huge move towards atheism and the rejection of organised religion among trained scientists, far out of wack with figures from the mainstream of society. You are far far more likely to say you follow no religion if you are a trained scientists than if you are a member of another profession or skill set.

Why is it that I keep hearing of more and more Christians in science then? I know it may well be anecdotal but it is still crucial to think about and understand. I thought Christians were irrational, not able to comprehend science or the things of the natural world? I thought we were outright delusional and there was no place for us in these fields.

Could it be that Christianity isn't actually dying as rapid a death as people thought? There are going to be plenty of hands to spread the Gospel in the next generation, infact worldwide this could be one of the best centuries for Christianity in a long time. This criticism that we are receiving if legitimate is going to be very helpful in guiding the church, rather than destroying it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well the evidence would suggest otherwise.

There simply isn't any. Faith even if it is declining in Europe is rather normalising. There is never going to be a point when Christianity will die in the West. As I say even if it drops to 20% which for me is the worst case scenario we still have a strong fellowship of believers by which to evangelise and by which to think about the Gospel and how we should present it in the future.

Through organisations such as IFES it is possible that Christianity could be an active feature in the West as well as abroad if more effort is put towards evangelism.

Wicknight wrote: »

I will get to the Apologetics tomorrow if I can.

Thanks for the effort.

dvpower wrote: »

Even if the numbers of religious people isn't in major decline, their quality is. More and more people take an a la carte approach to their religion; more people who describe themselves as 'spiritual' rather than religious; more people who think that the likes of Deepak Chopra have some kind of innate wisdom. This doesn't bode well for religions. These 'religious' are on their way out the door.

Fundamentalism may be on the rise in some places (USA comes to mind), but rather than representing a resurgence, these are people have their backs against the wall.

As ever religions will change and adapt the a la carte nature of religion has probably always existed. The foundation of different sects is pretty much this approach. The various different gauges of Christianity to suit the culture that existed beforehand is a testament to it. I would think that most Irish Catholics have a belief that more closely matched Protestant views but most can't accept that due to historical events.
In truth religion has always been about control and at some point in the future it is likely that control will be lost. At one point the wealth was with the religious now that wealth is moving away from having religious connections. Big companies of the past that have religious connections no longer have it and new companies don't tend to have it at all. In saying that new religions do hold some power and are gaining more ground such as Scientology which could lead them to having more control that more popular religions. Personally I doubt Christianity will remain as popular in Ireland and AFAIK it is dropping at a huge rate.

I think it isn't dropping as quickly as people think it is. However it is in decline in many churches, it is also increasing in other congregations. This shows me more that it is about how we do church. Is it aimed to be boring or is the congregation dynamic willing to change and willing to serve God instead of keeping it to themselves? Yes the former will be very much in decline, the latter probably won't be.

As for Irish Catholics holding views similar to Protestantism, just curious do you think that Ireland will become more Protestantised at the same time as people lose religion?

Does faith passing on lie with the schools? This is a very traditional understanding of schooling. In the USA secularisation of education has had little impact on how faith is actually spread. How can you account for this in comparison to the Irish situation. The facts are we don't know what affect anything has had on the Irish situation, as it is far too soon to tell. People can do nothing apart from make assumptions.

Protestantism is liberal in what respect? You'll find many who are conservative enough. Yes certain individuals within it may be liberal, others are evangelical within these denominations. Anglicanism and the Church of Ireland is quite diverse in this respect.

Again, I don't see how decline in Catholicism is going to necessarily usher a decline in other Christian denominations although elements of the COI are suffering decline right now too while others are increasing. Changing the way we do church is going to be crucial.

CerebalCortex: I've heard of many ex-Catholics joining other churches such as Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, and Pentecostalism in particular. As for people leaving it altogether, we don't have any adequate statistics to work with currently, so the best we can do is think about it for ourselves. I don't think this is as bad for Christianity as a whole as people are making it out to be.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Me too and you would especially considering your position.

Interesting, what do you mean by "my position"?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm willing to accept I may have misinterpreted your posts. However, you could merely correct and clarify your understanding instead of making such a big deal about it

You aren't misrepresenting my views as I stated them you are just stating your beliefs over mine and others and think it is a response. You are using a method of argument I mentioned before

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough. Some people aren't choosing to put their children in religious schools. Very much a minority. I don't see how this affects in a major way the future of the Irish churches.

I am pretty sure that the number of new schools that are secular is a large portion of new schools. Considering they were pretty non existent in the past that "minority" is mostly due to available options. It is not a minority of new schools but a minority in the grand scheme due to pre-existing structures it is pretty impossible to do a buyout of schools from a religious order.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you haven't met a single person who has changed Christian churches I'd like to know what country you are living in. It's a rather common occurrence here. I've only seen it from Catholicism to other Protestant churches however in the UK it is from Anglicanism to Catholicism. So it seems that there is a divergence from the primary church to secondary churches.

I live in Ireland and specifically Dublin where it is quite apparent people are not going to any churches as they once did. Never met anybody who has changed church religion but I have met many people who have dismissed all religion now. If you think that it is a minority of parents wanting to put there kids in non denomination schools I think you will find it is a minority of people leaving Catholicism joining other faiths and a majority just leaving faith aside altogether.

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough. Not all religion passes from elder to younger. Some religion is found from external sources. Infact this is very true of Christianity if we take the global perspective on it. If you think about it Christianity had to come from somewhere into Europe at first. This definitely didn't happen from mother or father to son during this stage. We might be hitting the stage when there will be a real role for evangelism in the Irish situation again.

Not all religion indeed but the vast majority is and I know you love to go on about how it is not in your case but so what! This is generally how it is passed on and interrupting the cycle will have a long protracted effect. The spread of religions had a lot to do with the changing social structure and as every religion expands one is contracting and I believe Christianity is contracting in Ireland and you are deluding yourself by thinking it will hold out because it was big in the past. I'm pretty sure we know the Roman gods but not sure many still worship them

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not sure about "crumbling", but they are lessening certainly. This hyped up drama of the Church falling into the ground really has no bearing in reality.

There is simply not enough priests being produced in this country to spread the faith and there are not enough nuns or brothers to continue the religious education institutes. That is crumbling and literally dying out. They will be importing more priests and such from the bullied 3rd world countries but there will be less parishioners. The actual CBS structures are crumbling and have in effect been given to the state at agreed future dates.

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe in Christ yes, but I don't see how this would have anything to do with me witnessing Catholics changing their denomination or affiliation.

It has a lot to do with it as you are obviously affiliated with a church and see everything they do as good. You also look at what happens there as a reaffirmation of your beliefs and will also look at everything in that favour light

I will point out that you have said the group of people I show as an example of a minority yet look at your (actual) minority as a progression. You use the fact that not all religion is inherited to make any statement about how the inheritance nature of religion changes makes no difference as they don't need to do it that way. Put down one view with little substance and increase your own with even less substance

Kipperhell wrote: »

You aren't misrepresenting my views as I stated them you are just stating your beliefs over mine and others and think it is a response. You are using a method of argument I mentioned before

I don't have any ulterior motives in this discussion. It would be preferrable for both of us if you didn't insist that I did. I just think that religion can be spread without it being passed through the education system. Many would agree with me on that perspective.

Kipperhell wrote: »

I am pretty sure that the number of new schools that are secular is a large portion of new schools. Considering they were pretty non existent in the past that "minority" is mostly due to available options. It is not a minority of new schools but a minority in the grand scheme due to pre-existing structures it is pretty impossible to do a buyout of schools from a religious order.

Yes, but just because schools are secular doesn't mean that there aren't a segment of children in these schools who aren't already Christians or who may become Christians or that Christianity cannot be spread by other means. It's by and large irrelevant. All this says to me is that wow, non-denominational schools exist and religion isn't taught in them. That isn't a big deal nor does it reflect anything about the large scale secularisation of Ireland. You can at least concede that much?

Kipperhell wrote: »

I live in Ireland and specifically Dublin where it is quite apparent people are not going to any churches as they once did. Never met anybody who has changed church religion but I have met many people who have dismissed all religion now. If you think that it is a minority of parents wanting to put there kids in non denomination schools I think you will find it is a minority of people leaving Catholicism joining other faiths and a majority just leaving faith aside altogether.

That's fair enough. I know people who don't attend church either. Attending church doesn't mean defacto atheism, it could mean skepticism of the church, or skepticism of a church authority having any domination on their religious beliefs. It doesn't have much net effect on belief in God which many people see as being independent of church attendance. I would say that it could be a sign of atheism or of rapid secularisation.

Just because you haven't heard of anyone who has changed religion doesn't mean that it isn't prevalent. Although I really am surprised that you haven't heard of anyone changing their religion at all considering that I have heard of numerous cases. CerebalCortex has said that this is maybe due to the fact that I discuss with Christians of all sorts of different denominations relatively frequently.

I definitely wouldn't say that a majority have left faith aside altogether certainly not yet anyway. Maybe in a few years, as I said to Wicknight, I can't imagine it dropping any lower than 20% in a worst case scenario. It's not a huge challenge to the Christian faith it infact offers us an opportunity to clear away the cobwebs and to become more organised to reach people with the Gospel.

Kipperhell wrote: »

Not all religion indeed but the vast majority is and I know you love to go on about how it is not in your case but so what! This is generally how it is passed on and interrupting the cycle will have a long protracted effect. The spread of religions had a lot to do with the changing social structure and as every religion expands one is contracting and I believe Christianity is contracting in Ireland and you are deluding yourself by thinking it will hold out because it was big in the past. I'm pretty sure we know the Roman gods but not sure many still worship them

Both my parents believe in Christianity. I personally had difficulties with it (i.e I was an agnostic) until I took a good look at it for myself. I had some influence from my parents but overwhelmingly it was a personal decision based on the Scriptures.

I'm saying that all over the world there are a lot of people who have found Christianity without having it passed on from parents to children. It's one means but it's not an exclusive assumption that should be made.

I really amn't deluding myself. There are records of religion having contracted in other regions of the world and in Europe and there are records of religion having made a revival. It's hardly a delusion to think that this is no different for the modern circumstances. It's a delusion to believe that Christianity won't survive the current spate of contractions as historical examples make clear that it is most probable that it will. Post-enlightenment America makes it crystal clear. People mightn't want Christianity to make a revival in Europe but I have no doubt it will probably even to some extent before I pass away.

I don't think it will hold out precisely because it was big in the past, I think it will hold out because I don't have any evidence that it won't given past examples. Besides, looking at the past is really the only rational means we have of assessing what is likely to happen in the future. Anything else is actually just wishful thinking, which is irrational really with no substance or backing.

Kipperhell wrote: »

There is simply not enough priests being produced in this country to spread the faith and there are not enough nuns or brothers to continue the religious education institutes. That is crumbling and literally dying out. They will be importing more priests and such from the bullied 3rd world countries but there will be less parishioners. The actual CBS structures are crumbling and have in effect been given to the state at agreed future dates.

Catholic-centric stuff. People can account for many people being in Bible colleges across the country or in the UK and coming back. At the risk of giving away where I study (I've even said so in other posts I have made anyway) there are also quite a lot of seminarians still coming through the system here in Catholicism also if I can determine from how many first year seminarians there are in my philosophy class. Sure it is below replacement rate, and I do think that the Vatican need to make some changes in the marital situation of priests for that church to progress. However, again I think you are grossly exaggerating the situation that Christianity is currently in. I know there has been a steady stream in the Church of Ireland Theological Institute, and that there is a steady stream of people to the Presbyterian Church and other forms of ministry that don't involve pastoring a church.

Kipperhell wrote: »

It has a lot to do with it as you are obviously affiliated with a church and see everything they do as good. You also look at what happens there as a reaffirmation of your beliefs and will also look at everything in that favour light

I'm affiliated with the Church of Ireland but I do not claim that this church is perfect by any means. I keep saying that we need to change the way we do church in many settings, this is true of the Church of Ireland too. I consider myself Christian first and foremost, and Anglican second as such I believe that many from other denominations can offer good insight into my faith and can reason with me about the Scriptures. I don't think it's healthy to just listen to what the pastor says without thinking about it yourself. I'm not looking for a re-affirmation of my beliefs at all.

Secondly, because your post is a bit of a strawman. I was referring to the amount of people I see change denominations. This doesn't have that much to do with my own church, but with other peoples churches and people telling me about their spiritual background at home but they decided to join X church. It doesn't particularly matter what X is. It's not really about what happens in my church. It's what is happening in the Irish church in general.

Kipperhell wrote: »

I will point out that you have said the group of people I show as an example of a minority yet look at your (actual) minority as a progression. You use the fact that not all religion is inherited to make any statement about how the inheritance nature of religion changes makes no difference as they don't need to do it that way. Put down one view with little substance and increase your own with even less substance

We are discussing two minorities. The ones who change church, and the ones who don't have time for religion at all. I accept that very much. However that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be considered or factored into the over all discussion on the issue. You surely would agree with that much?

I don't put down peoples views at all. I'm considering them. However I don't think it's a fair assumption that everyone receives their faith from mum and dad without thinking about it at all? Do you?