Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Dawkins strips away religion's dead wood

2

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pts wrote: »
    Maybe replace the Bible with the Jefferson Bible.

    I had a feeling that someone would say something like this. Removing everything about God wouldn't make it a religion anymore. Jefferson's Bible is an interesting read to see what he left in and what he removed, however it's not a touch on the real thing.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    What did he say about them?

    I could go on and on about it here, or I could give you some material to read. I don't particularly want to discuss evidence on this thread as it could get messy. This topic is far better than the same boring old arguments we get into about evidence.

    http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/publications/knowingDoing/2004/Miracles.pdf
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Well of course the bible contains some truth. No one has ever suggested that every single word in it was made up. It would be ridiculous for the story of Sodom to be based on a fictional city instead of an actual place that was actually destroyed. I'd see it the same way some people blamed hurricane Katrina on the gay accepting lifestyle in New Orleans. These bigots exist even in the 21st century so of course they existed 2000 years ago when such claims carried more weight

    That's a fair point actually. If the Sodom incident were isolated on it's own it would not give much credence to God having been behind it. I can recognise that much. However if you had multiple instances or additional indications that could be verified would one eventually start to consider that it could be more than a coincidence?
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The only parts of the bible that I am interested in seeing the evidence for are the miraculous parts and proving Sodom does not indicate anything supernatural unless you can also show that it couldn't have been destroyed by a natural disaster. To use the old theist argument: "you can't prove it wasn't an earthquake!"

    What theist argument? :confused:

    As for the Bible and miracles. I wouldn't consider them the parts I am most interested in anyway. I'm more interested in the message and the practical implications it could have on my life. I've always been minded that kind of way towards the Bible since I started to read it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I could go on and on about it here, or I could give you some material to read. I don't particularly want to discuss evidence on this thread as it could get messy. This topic is far better than the same boring old arguments we get into about evidence.

    http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/publications/knowingDoing/2004/Miracles.pdf
    I'll have a read

    Jakkass wrote: »
    That's a fair point actually. If the Sodom incident were isolated on it's own it would not give much credence to God having been behind it. I can recognise that much. However if you had multiple instances or additional indications that could be verified would one eventually start to consider that it could be more than a coincidence?
    I don't consider the whole Sodom thing as evidence at all, even an indication. I carries zero weight with me so no matter how many things of equal weight you had, the evidence would still add up to zero. When talking about claims of walking on water and raising from the dead, many weak indications to not make a strong indication. You have to show that these things are possible before you can use arguments like "they couldn't have lied". I know lying is possible so I'll always go to that conclusion before I go to a supernatural one. These weak indications will never, ever be convincing to me.

    If, however, you had one piece of compelling evidence that I could accept, I might accept these weak indications after the fact. Once you show that miracles are possible my requirement for proof for these events would drop because they would then fit with the known universe. But I will never accept them on their own
    Jakkass wrote: »
    What theist argument? :confused:
    The argument "You can't prove God doesn't exist". you've used a variation of it yourself when you said there's nothing to suggest that God didn't have a hand in evolution. The obvious response being "there's nothing to suggest he did either"
    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for the Bible and miracles. I wouldn't consider them the parts I am most interested in anyway. I'm more interested in the message and the practical implications it could have on my life. I've always been minded that kind of way towards the Bible since I started to read it.

    In terms of how I live my life I'm the same. The philosophy of Jesus is a very good one to live your life by. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is the golden rule of morality. The only problem I have is the whole supernatural side and the idea that you'll burn in hell if you don't believe in their book etc. I think Thomas Jefferson would agree when I say:Christianity is great once you take the religious parts out


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I can't imagine those who claim to follow Christ falling any lower than 20% in Europe as a whole.
    Why?

    I would be surprised if this didn't happen. Possibly not in my lifetime, but within the next few hundred years. There is only so far organised religions like Christianity can survive in a society progressively marching forward in terms of education and living standard.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think there will be a severe impact at all in the USA.
    There already has been. People seem to be confusing the rise of fundamentalist religion with a rise in religion as a whole. Religious belief is falling. This is being matched by the fundamentalisation of those who are hanging on. As religious belief falls religious people get more vocal and extreme, precisely because of the feeling that their religion is being eroded and under threat.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have little reason to doubt that this is merely a trend that is occurring in this particular time frame and that there will be other time frames whereby religion sees a revival.
    Well that is possible. Something like a world wide pandemic certainly might reverse things and bring people back to religion.

    But in the grand scheme of things I think there is little reason to view this decline as a blimp on the human time scale. The correlations are there, increase living standards, increase education, increase science, increase the spread of ideas and openness to challenge ideas, and organised religion falls.

    Again though I would point out I'm not necessarily equating this with a rise in atheism.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    See, this is the issue though. You're making a rather big assumption here and that is that Christianity has no place in free societies although it has existed in free societies for quite a long time now.
    It has been declining in these societies for quite a long time now from a starting point of almost complete acceptance.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's not only in oppressive nations where Christianity has grown, but also in free societies like South Korea. Infact I'd argue that freedom, forgiveness and other Western values were buiilt from Christian principles but were eventually adapted into secular discourse as well.
    Korea is actually a good example of what I'm talking about. Christianity may be growing in Korea but nearly 50% of the population adhere to no organised religion. Christianity is growing among the religious group that is quickly heading towards being a minority as over all religious subscription falls.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Christianity is a rather big chunk of who I am, it's how I identify myself mainly. As I say feel free.
    That isn't really the issue. The question is will your children feel the same need for religion. Or their children? Will the arguments for Christianity make sense to them as they make sense to you?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Yes, and Richard Dawkins had his moment in the spotlight. Everyone is accountable to said ridicule. I think the message is more that with Trey Parker and Matt Stone that it is better just to take the ridicule instead of bringing lawsuits to light.
    Yes but there is a point behind the ridicule. A lot of stuff we hold on to, particularly religious belief, we hold on to for reasons other than because it makes sense and is sensible. Ridicule can highlight this, turn the mirror back on people. This applies to atheists as much as anyone.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't know how much you have read of Christian apologetics or who you have read so I can't really comment until you have clarified that much. Although you did admit to having consulted some C.S Lewis a while back. I will say that you are probably more open minded than many others.
    I've read Lewis and found his arguments quite bad though it is clear he has put thought into it. With Lewis though you feel he is trying to find a solution having already made his mind up that such a solution should exist.

    I've read books that expand upon Lewis and found these not only bad but in some cases seem to miss the point of Lewis himself, which was a bit odd.

    I've never heard any apologetic argument that could not be dismantled within 5 minutes by anyone who has a basic understanding of Dawkins or Harris, let alone the atheist heavy weights.

    Ultimately the apologetic arguments seem to me to be appealing to emotion rather than reason. They are an attempt to give believers who want to believe something to hang on to, rather than an actual argument for belief. It reminds me a lot of the Creationists. To the Creationist movement what seems most important is the idea that there is a debate taking place over things like evolution or carbon dating. This allows them to rationalise their beliefs. Things are undecided, things are up in the air, there are two sides, there is evidence for and against, nothing is set yet, both sides have theories. I can still believe in a 6,000 year old Earth and tell myself that this has not been ruled out yet.

    What comes a distant second to forming a debate is the question of whether the arguments and theories on the Creationist side have any merit at all to them. That is not important.

    Christian apologetics seems similar to this. What seems to matter more than the arguments themselves is simply that they exist, allow people to say that there are arguments in support of their beliefs. I would support this assertion some what by the fact that any time I've debated Christian arguments the Christians seem utterly uninterested in any of the flaws in these arguments.

    Bring all that back to this thread itself, I think the effect of Christian apologetics to put forward a convincing argument for faith to people who have not already accepted is severely diminished as more people openly discuss these arguments including the flaws in them and gain education into alternative understand through things like science. A lot of religion's power is in explaining things we don't understand.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Individual Christians can be a terrible example. C.S Lewis also deals with this extensively in Mere Christianity.
    I would agree, but it is a very common response on the Christian forum, people being told to spend time with Christians as if this demonstrates the truth of the claims of the religion.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    In fairness do you not find it absurd that other people are somehow qualified to speak about the lives of others?

    Not in the slightest. I do find it absurd that we would expect someone to know themselves what is happening to them when they experience spiritual feelings. We would not expect this for physical feelings (My doctor says that pain in my back is cancer but I'm pretty sure it is something else), why we think individuals are capable of self diagnosing their own mental experiences I've no idea.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm not quite as sure about this. Many people do see compatibility between Christianity and evolution. Many would also argue there is no reason whatsoever why they aren't compatible.
    That wasn't really my point. Evolution explains human emotions and moral systems very well, why we have morals, why we feel emotions such as love, why some of us are violent or "evil".

    This relegates Christian explanations, for example the Fall, to a diminished position of unnecessary and unsupported speculation.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    There will always be people such as myself who find it more logical that the creation cannot be the creator.
    Yes but that is just the same as saying there will always be people who don't totally accept evolution. So it isn't really that evolution and Christianity are compatible, it is that some people pick and choose what parts of evolution they accept and which they don't
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Evolution as a biological theory, I would find has nothing to do with the secular efforts of people to establish moral theories.

    It isn't trying to, but it does explain why humans make efforts to establish moral theories in the first place. It explains where our basic instinct for morality comes from, rather than invoking God to explain this. It explains why we all have a sense of right and wrong.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'd argue that that is effectively a non-point though. Atheists have been coming back to Christ all over the world. There is absolutely no reason why this cannot happen in Europe or any other region of the world.
    Well there is if you look at who these atheists are and why they are converting. For example the middle classes in China converting to Christianity are not equivalent to middle classes in Europe abandoning Christianity.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    People have been saying the same type of nonsense that you have been spouting since the 18th century.
    And since the Enlightenment membership in organised religion has been declining in the Western world.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Why do you seem to think there will be this point of demise at all? Why are you interested in the destruction of religion?

    I'm interested in a lot of things Jakkass. I find humans and human behaviour fascinating.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I would have thought this would have been a good time to make a common framework to co-exist together rather than rambling about the demise of the other.

    It is nothing to do with co-existing. The humans aren't going any where, they are simply rejecting religion.

    Lot of points there, will try to get to the rest soon


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I would find the retort of a natural experience to be somewhat of a cop out for not explaining the why, what purpose does this serve. Interesting all the same.
    You're the one who's claiming there is a "why?"

    Our brains just happen to have evolved that way as far as I'm concerned. Naturally profound experiences don't have to have a purpose any more than our appendix has to have a purpose.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    That's a fair point actually. If the Sodom incident were isolated on it's own it would not give much credence to God having been behind it. I can recognise that much. However if you had multiple instances or additional indications that could be verified would one eventually start to consider that it could be more than a coincidence?

    Name one incident in the history of humanity that has been verified as an act of God.

    If every time something happens, such as a natural disaster, it is attributed to God it is hardly surprising you will get a long list of disasters attributed to God.

    Look at the history of America over the last 100 years. Everything in America, from the San Fran quake at the turn of the 20th century to Katrina, has been attributed to God's wrath on America. Saying that this has happened more than once and this demonstrates something is rather silly


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    I've read that link now Jakkass and I'm afraid it gets an F. Just dealing with the summary:
    To those who would deny the miraculous, C. S. Lewis
    might say: First, naturalists (who view nature as a closed
    box) have great difficulty sustaining their position because
    the credibility of the thinking used to establish the
    position is severely undermined by their own assumptions.
    It's basically saying that our whole thought process cannot be verified so we cannot know that miracles are impossible. Well we can't actually know anything for sure other than our own consciousness exists but we can be pretty damn sure through verifiable, repeatable experiments. Sorry but fail
    Second, miracles are not impossible because there
    is no argument to prove that they cannot happen.
    the argument used is:
    What if 500 people were claimed to have risen from the
    dead and 5,000 people in each case were said to have
    witnessed the resurrection, would that bring a different
    result?
    I was assured that no it would still be several billion
    versus 5,000 in each case. It would not matter if I and all
    my friends witnessed 100 miracles; the result would still be the same.
    It wouldn't matter if 5000 people claimed it because it would still just be a claim and the human mind can be deceived. However, if one of them had some compelling evidence.....

    The second argument actually contradicts the first because he first claims that our thought process is dodgy and then can't understand why someone wouldn't accept an unfounded claim from people who follow that thought process. We know that the human mind is fallible, that's why we verify things experimentally
    Third,
    they are not improbable unless you wrongly oppose instances
    of natural law to unusual or miraculous events.
    You need to weigh the historical evidence for each of
    these unusual events before excluding or accepting
    them. Fourth, miracles are not inappropriate because
    there is a unique fitness of how miracles relate to
    Christianity by comparison with other religious systems.

    Just because Christianity might place more weight on them than the one given example, Buddhism, (although I don't believe that to be the case at all) does not change the fact that other religions claim they happened and that these claims are central to their religious beliefs.

    And even if I did accept that they weren't impossible and weren't improbable that does not remove the burden of proving each individual one. Even if you prove that miracles are possible doesn't mean that every claim of a miracle is true, partially because other religions also claim miracles, regardless of that article's odd attempt to dismiss their claims

    btw this isn't off topic because you asked what do we think would be needed for christianity to survive and my answer is "better logic than the above"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    Start off saying something along the line every time I touch my elbow I get strength and my wishes come true.
    Now in an experiment with said belief touching ones elbow fails to make the wishes come true.
    Response: Well touching my elbow always gives me strength of will and the higher power that observes my wishes sometimes doesn't grant them because it has greater wisdom. "You can't always get what you want but sometimes you get what you need"

    The response circumnavigates any proof requirement and the person can retain their belief. They can believe it and have proof on the occasions it worked yet it is neither logical or true. It is a faith of sorts. Now you could of course replace elbow touching with prayer with the same results and people who claim religious logic will say it is true and use the same response.

    It is obvious some people are not willing to call what they believe a faith and rather call it "truth". Excusing the ability for English to have multiple meanings it fair to excuse mistakes. When a religion refers to their belief as "truth" like a noun it is understandable that people are unable to understand the discussion and the meaning of the words. Religious indoctrination by itself can remove understanding and by its own methods replace them with circular logic as above. It is literally impossible for them to talk with reason about certain subjects because they have a circular logic and inbuilt defences. It is no stupidity that gets somebody there or keeps them there but a carefully constructed illusion that removal of self from means eternal damnation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 424 ✭✭Obni


    OBNI wrote:
    Both are possible declarations of a standpoint taken by a person of faith.
    JAKASS wrote:
    I don't think b really is.
    You don't think it's possible???
    Try to understand, I wasn't trying to attribute the declaration to a particular individual. Regard them as quotes from characters in a play, (a) being written by an author sympathetic to the views of those of faith and (b) by an author trying to portray the character as defending a stance they know is vulnerable. It is a very simple form of character development in literature, as I'm sure you know. Your responses to posts can, on occasion, be framed in terms which carry over-tones of character development of the original poster; creating implicit straw-men, if you will.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Why?

    This time in history is no more special than things that have happened in the past. I find the phrase "there is nothing new under the sun" to be quite poignant in this case. People have professed the same things that you have professed about Christianity, they fell flat. There have been religious revivals, and religious decline in the past. This is nothing new or nothing special by my book.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I would be surprised if this didn't happen. Possibly not in my lifetime, but within the next few hundred years. There is only so far organised religions like Christianity can survive in a society progressively marching forward in terms of education and living standard.

    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. It just shows how wrong peoples estimates or hunches can be. I have no reason to believe that this time is any different than any other in history. I also have no reason to believe that this would last for a few decades.

    Let me continue on your post about "progressively". You do realise that progressive is at the eyes of the beholder, as is "moving forward". I consider Christianisation to be progressive in terms of how it provokes us to act towards one another. It's an ideology that is forward thinking. That's my honest view on it. Of course your view that Christianity is regressive is a product of your atheism and mine is the product of Christianity. 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.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    There already has been. People seem to be confusing the rise of fundamentalist religion with a rise in religion as a whole. Religious belief is falling. This is being matched by the fundamentalisation of those who are hanging on. As religious belief falls religious people get more vocal and extreme, precisely because of the feeling that their religion is being eroded and under threat.

    Well Wicknight, you yourself conceded that there was a rise in religious belief worldwide a few posts ago. It is very much the case especially with Christianity and Islam. Moderate religious belief is also growing in some sectors and in others it is declining. I don't see the threat to global Christianity at all apart from that we are going to find that African members of the church and Asian members of the church are going to wield more influence in global Christian affairs. If you look at the Anglican Church currently you will see that this is very much true concerning the Global South and the homosexual ministers / women ministers debate. I'm not sure if your hypothesis is entirely correct, but we can both discern certain trends I think.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well that is possible. Something like a world wide pandemic certainly might reverse things and bring people back to religion.

    Why is a pandemic necessary? There have been several religious reawakenings around the world particularly in the 19th leading into 20th century in the USA. You know that in the early colonisation that religious attendance was actually very low in the USA. Infact on a quick google this source suggests that religious attendance in the USA was as low as 17% in 1776. 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.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    But in the grand scheme of things I think there is little reason to view this decline as a blimp on the human time scale. The correlations are there, increase living standards, increase education, increase science, increase the spread of ideas and openness to challenge ideas, and organised religion falls.

    Why though? Religion rises, religion falls, atheism rises, atheism falls. This is really nothing new. Example after example can show you cases of this. 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.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Again though I would point out I'm not necessarily equating this with a rise in atheism.

    Of course.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    It has been declining in these societies for quite a long time now from a starting point of almost complete acceptance.

    This isn't the case for all free societies.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Korea is actually a good example of what I'm talking about. Christianity may be growing in Korea but nearly 50% of the population adhere to no organised religion. Christianity is growing among the religious group that is quickly heading towards being a minority as over all religious subscription falls.

    Yes, but people didn't adhere to organised religion before missionaries started to arrive there. 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.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That isn't really the issue. The question is will your children feel the same need for religion. Or their children? Will the arguments for Christianity make sense to them as they make sense to you?

    We are discussing hypothetical children here :) but I have no reason why this possibility could not happen with any potential children or grandchildren that I happen to have. 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. 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. This bears no difficulty for them. I am technically also studying a science degree (Computer Science but through Arts this year, will be doing it single honours next year). There is nothing that would stop healthy faith forming in a society like ours if we decide to teach it the right way.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes but there is a point behind the ridicule. A lot of stuff we hold on to, particularly religious belief, we hold on to for reasons other than because it makes sense and is sensible. Ridicule can highlight this, turn the mirror back on people. This applies to atheists as much as anyone.

    I really don't care what point you convince yourself that justifies ridicule of Christianity. As I say feel free, your questioning only encourages one thing for me, and that is to seek answers for myself. I have found that it has strengthened my faith, and I thank you for what you and others have done to strengthen my faith even if it was implicit. I remember my first discussions with you, and how they were rather shaky as I was first coming to Christianity then (in 2007). I probably shouldn't have even been discussing this with you or anyone else at that time, but I did, in many cases it solidified my opinions on certain matters.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I've read books that expand upon Lewis and found these not only bad but in some cases seem to miss the point of Lewis himself, which was a bit odd.

    In some cases the openings of his books can be in quite complex language. I had to read the start of Miracles 3 times before I started to get the point that he was trying to put forward.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I've never heard any apologetic argument that could not be dismantled within 5 minutes by anyone who has a basic understanding of Dawkins or Harris, let alone the atheist heavy weights.

    The reverse of this statement is probably also factually accurate given the refutations of the God Delusion that Allister McGrath has managed to put forward.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ultimately the apologetic arguments seem to me to be appealing to emotion rather than reason. They are an attempt to give believers who want to believe something to hang on to, rather than an actual argument for belief. It reminds me a lot of the Creationists. To the Creationist movement what seems most important is the idea that there is a debate taking place over things like evolution or carbon dating. This allows them to rationalise their beliefs. Things are undecided, things are up in the air, there are two sides, there is evidence for and against, nothing is set yet, both sides have theories. I can still believe in a 6,000 year old Earth and tell myself that this has not been ruled out yet.

    There is nothing emotional about Lewis or anyone else that I have tried to read, or anyone who I have indeed watched. Would you mind giving examples of this instead of merely claiming so.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Christian apologetics seems similar to this. What seems to matter more than the arguments themselves is simply that they exist, allow people to say that there are arguments in support of their beliefs. I would support this assertion some what by the fact that any time I've debated Christian arguments the Christians seem utterly uninterested in any of the flaws in these arguments.

    They do exist, just as much as atheist arguments against God's existence do, I'm not quite getting the point you are trying to get to yet. I am willing to listen to the flaws in these arguments and accept them as flaws if they are flaws. I personally am interested in the truth, and Christianity seems to be most probably the truth from my perspective at the minute.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Bring all that back to this thread itself, I think the effect of Christian apologetics to put forward a convincing argument for faith to people who have not already accepted is severely diminished as more people openly discuss these arguments including the flaws in them and gain education into alternative understand through things like science. A lot of religion's power is in explaining things we don't understand.

    Yes, I will wait for you to give examples of these flaws first, otherwise it is meaningless.

    Religions power is answering the why. Atheists don't seem interested in this, hence why I find it rather difficult to relate to atheist arguments. The why doesn't really matter to atheists. It matters a lot to the Christian. I'm a why kind of guy I guess.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I would agree, but it is a very common response on the Christian forum, people being told to spend time with Christians as if this demonstrates the truth of the claims of the religion.

    Well I can tell you that it is not a great argument many times. I would point anyone to look at Jesus Christs life. I'm nowhere near as good an example as He is for the Christian faith.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Not in the slightest. I do find it absurd that we would expect someone to know themselves what is happening to them when they experience spiritual feelings. We would not expect this for physical feelings (My doctor says that pain in my back is cancer but I'm pretty sure it is something else), why we think individuals are capable of self diagnosing their own mental experiences I've no idea.

    I do think that humans are relatively good witnesses for what is happening to them and how they feel about certain things. I'm not saying that my diagnosis is superior to anyone elses, but given what is currently coming to light about religious experience in the frontal lobe and so on this doesn't give any credence to the fact that God doesn't exist, not does it even indicate it. Science only concerns with "hows", and that's where the limitation is drawn. Just because we have an explanation of how doesn't mean we shouldn't seek out the why.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That wasn't really my point. Evolution explains human emotions and moral systems very well, why we have morals, why we feel emotions such as love, why some of us are violent or "evil".

    I'm an advocate for keeping evolution out of moral theory. That's more a philosophical question than a biological question. Infact I don't think evolution should be involved in assessing other areas of academia at all. Keep evolution in biology. Morals can be explained without it and are more properly explained without it if you look to moral philosophy and what people are theorising about it.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    This relegates Christian explanations, for example the Fall, to a diminished position of unnecessary and unsupported speculation.

    I have yet to see how this is the case.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes but that is just the same as saying there will always be people who don't totally accept evolution. So it isn't really that evolution and Christianity are compatible, it is that some people pick and choose what parts of evolution they accept and which they don't

    This is a matter of Biblical interpretation rather than just "picking and choosing". You'll find that theistic evolutionists hold to Genesis 1 just as much as Young Earth Creationists do. They question the text itself from the Hebrew to see if the Young Earth Creationist is assessing it properly. Yes, it's contended but both hold to the same passage equally. I don't ridicule other understandings of Genesis 1 however. I personally don't claim to know everything about the way the world began but what I do feel is that it is possible that God could have orchestrated evolution given the meaning of the Hebrew word "yom" which is generally translated to "day" but can mean "age" or a longer period of time.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    It isn't trying to, but it does explain why humans make efforts to establish moral theories in the first place. It explains where our basic instinct for morality comes from, rather than invoking God to explain this. It explains why we all have a sense of right and wrong.

    It explains the how perhaps. I'd argue that Christianity does explain the why for me, but that it can also be explained in secular discourse too. We can explain it perfectly fine without invoking evolution however. Infact I'd contend we can explain it much better without invoking evolution.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well there is if you look at who these atheists are and why they are converting. For example the middle classes in China converting to Christianity are not equivalent to middle classes in Europe abandoning Christianity.

    Please elaborate on this point. I'm curious as to why you don't think they are equivalent.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    And since the Enlightenment membership in organised religion has been declining in the Western world.

    This isn't the case I've given you examples to the contrary.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm interested in a lot of things Jakkass. I find humans and human behaviour fascinating.

    As do I actually :)
    Wicknight wrote: »
    It is nothing to do with co-existing. The humans aren't going any where, they are simply rejecting religion.

    Some are rejecting it, many more are accepting it.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Lot of points there, will try to get to the rest soon

    No rush, I've enjoyed the discussion so far :)
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    You're the one who's claiming there is a "why?"

    Our brains just happen to have evolved that way as far as I'm concerned. Naturally profound experiences don't have to have a purpose any more than our appendix has to have a purpose.

    I just cannot have this understanding of the universe. I am interested in seeking out why the world is the way it is and I believe that these can be explained. You on the other hand reject that this is even a worthwhile practice. It's funny how people can be satisfied intellectually in very different ways.

    Sam Vimes: I'm not going to get into a complete argument about a PDF file explaining very briefly the book. I'd suggest picking up the actual book at your local library or whatever and reading it for yourself.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Name one incident in the history of humanity that has been verified as an act of God.

    Apologies bad use of terms. I concede that.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    If every time something happens, such as a natural disaster, it is attributed to God it is hardly surprising you will get a long list of disasters attributed to God.

    This is something I'm going to need to think about more myself. I don't have answers to every single thing that is thrown at me. I hope you understand :)

    EDIT:
    Obni wrote: »
    Your responses to posts can, on occasion, be framed in terms which carry over-tones of character development of the original poster; creating implicit straw-men, if you will.

    I think I dealt with the situation adequately. My terminology might have come across as strong but that can happen on this forum. I've already said that no offence was intended to be caused by that comment, however I do believe it to be the reality of the situation.

    Kipperhell: Are you really that desperate to get people not to speak to me on this thread? Lighten up. I'm just having a back and forth. There are no ulterior motives involved whatsoever :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Sam Vimes: I'm not going to get into a complete argument about a PDF file explaining very briefly the book. I'd suggest picking up the actual book at your local library or whatever and reading it for yourself.

    No I don't think I'll be doing that tbh. I've looked at a lot of arguments for religion from a wide variety of sources. If lewis' arguments are so good I think it's safe to assume that I've come across them from other people who didn't attribute them to him. You've given some of them yourself in the past and I've just read that article summarising some of his main points and it was extremely weak

    Basically I'm not going to commit to reading it until I get some indication that I wouldn't be wasting my time reading the same old flawed arguments


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 424 ✭✭Obni


    Just thought I'd throw a spanner in the works and refer back to the original topic.
    Couldn't they have summarized it as "Dawkins is right about everyone's beliefs. Except for mine. With any luck, all the rubbish religions will flounder, while my cobbled together mongrel dogma will flourish.", and saved a lot of paper.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


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

    Oh I'm open minded, I was open minded enough to read a summary of the main points of the guy's book. I have now closed my mind to it because the summary was very weak and if that's the bit that was chosen to highlight the book must be very bad indeed. I gave him a chance and he failed


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    To anyone who may have read it, does it get any better than that?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    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.

    As many people believe in God/Supernature as ever IMO. It's only the old state Religions that are loosing ground and even then that's only happening in the West. Also there's likely only just as many non-believers as ever, it's just that they're no longer scared of saying so.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    As many people believe in God/Supernature as ever IMO. It's only the old state Religions that are loosing ground and even then that's only happening in the West. Also there's likely only just as many non-believers as ever, it's just that they're no longer scared of saying so.

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I think in discussions about whether religion is on the increase or decline, you cannot just look at the 'world' in general.

    Europe, Africa, Russia, China, the US... they're all experiencing their own changes in demograph - and all for different reasons.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    Given the increase in non denominational schools and the lack of religious order teachers the whole method of passing on the faith that is generally used has lost ground. Effectively the churches have lost their footing in this country. Other denominations increasing their catchment is no surprise given the mass immigration in this country. Ireland has become more liberal and as the Protestant faith is a liberal version of Christianity Ireland has become close to this but it won't increase the faith here due to history.
    My mother was a devout catholic as were most of her peers now they freely admit the don't believe in the faith due to the hypocritical nature of those in the church. They feel they were brainwashed as children and stick with it due to the social aspects of it. Their parents never thought this way so I see it is loosing ground at the start and at the end and I don't know anybody that would admit to being religious in company other than extremists. It simply is becoming socially unacceptable which has good and bad points.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    ....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.

    But what are the facts when one talks about the decline in Catholicism in Ireland? Are people leaving or disregarding it because they think the religion itself is irrelevant/unbelievable or because they would like a better church? Which is the minority, which is the majority?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    CerebalCortex: I've heard of many ex-Catholics joining other churches such as Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, and Pentecostalism in particular.

    Me too and you would especially considering your position.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.

    I agree there are probably/possibly a lot worse things for Christianity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Me too and you would especially considering your position.

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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. etc...

    Classic!
    You did it again I mention two groups of people and you ignore one completely. You then ignore what I had to actually say and go off on a tangent to the point.

    We don't have the back up service of religious teaching in this country that the US needed to create due to it's constitution. People are choosing not to put their children in religious education which indicates both parents feel this is best and the child is unlikely to be given this religious teaching ever now. There is certainly an increase in secular beliefs and if you think the increase in other Christian teachings indicates they are flocking to them you missed the point about immigration. I have not met a single person who changed Christian churches but I have met many who disregard their Christian techings.


    The other point being the elders in families are not insisting on religion as they did in the past. I still wouldn't say things to my grandmother and neither does my mother as she is old. The dynamic has radically changed and the institutions that forced religion on people is crumbling. New Christian faiths are not gaining as much ground and may end up like hippy communes from the 60s in time as they have in the past. There is a repeating pattern and religion is unlikely to ever be eliminated but thankfully it has lost much power and is declining gradually.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Interesting, what do you mean by "my position"?

    A devout Christian.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Kipperhell wrote: »
    Classic!
    You did it again I mention two groups of people and you ignore one completely. You then ignore what I had to actually say and go off on a tangent to the point.

    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 :)
    Kipperhell wrote: »
    We don't have the back up service of religious teaching in this country that the US needed to create due to it's constitution. People are choosing not to put their children in religious education which indicates both parents feel this is best and the child is unlikely to be given this religious teaching ever now. There is certainly an increase in secular beliefs and if you think the increase in other Christian teachings indicates they are flocking to them you missed the point about immigration. I have not met a single person who changed Christian churches but I have met many who disregard their Christian techings.

    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 didn't deny that there was an increase in secular belief at all on this thread. I merely suggested that it is a normal progression and that it won't be as dramatic as anyone else would suggest it to be.

    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.
    Kipperhell wrote: »
    The other point being the elders in families are not insisting on religion as they did in the past. I still wouldn't say things to my grandmother and neither does my mother as she is old. The dynamic has radically changed and the institutions that forced religion on people is crumbling. New Christian faiths are not gaining as much ground and may end up like hippy communes from the 60s in time as they have in the past. There is a repeating pattern and religion is unlikely to ever be eliminated but thankfully it has lost much power and is declining gradually.

    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.

    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.
    A devout Christian.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Sorry I assumed the reason I didn't see any of that is because I'm not a christian.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sorry I assumed the reason I didn't see any of that is because I'm not a christian.

    It could well be. I'm not going to assume the reasons why things happen in your life though :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It could well be. I'm not going to assume the reasons why things happen in your life though :)

    What is that supposed to mean? Are you taking umbrage because I made a fair assumption? It was nothing personal.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I meant I can't account for why you don't see that, so your reason is as good as any other.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    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.
    I think the statistics support the idea that religion is passed down from elder to younger in the vast majority of cases. If the number of people who independently chose their religion was in any way statistically significant that graph would look very different.

    You can bet your boots that, for example, those pockets of Catholicism in the US can be traced back to catholic settlers hundreds of years ago.

    And notice how there are no mormons outside the place where they originally started. That religion has been 100% passed down


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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?
    I'd imagine most people here believe that's how the vast majority of people who have a "faith", get it.

    If not directly from their parents, then from the religious figures their parents had them educated under.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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?

    No one's saying that everyone does because that's demonstrably not true, they're saying that the vast majority do, I'd estimate over 95%

    Would you disagree with that figure and if so, what figure would you put on it?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No one's saying that everyone does because that's demonstrably not true, they're saying that the vast majority do, I'd estimate over 95%

    Would you disagree with that figure and if so, what figure would you put on it?

    I don't agree with figures generally unless there is anything to back them up. That's why I generally have issue with hypothetical numbers. I think the best we could say is a large percent are encouraged by their family members, and a sizeable population join religions through evangelism or outreach by friends.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭Kipperhell


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.
    Well let's just start with the fact I have not said you have ulterior motives so I am therefore not insisting on them. I simply stating that your personal method or discussion is void of true discussion and primarily focused on continually arguing. The fact you think I have said you have ulterior motives pretty much is an example of your desire to assume the other persons view and failure to understand.
    You may think you are open to discussion but the actions and methods of communication illustrate a complete lack of understanding or willingness to comprehend. It is like asking a maths question on how many eggs a chicken laid in a given period and the response is why does it have to be a chicken?:rolleyes:
    The internet is a great place to be self justified in a discussion but in the real world would not accept such an apparent lack of both common sense and understanding.
    Everything is drawn out in a long and repeatedly quoted manner that is simply nit picking manner. I am done as you have nothing of any meaning to say when you cannot concede any point of common sense or language understanding.

    I simple don't believe you understand what you arguing about and how circular most of your points are. After that I don't get what contribution you are truly making here


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Kipperhell: If all you are going to do is complain and complain and complain what is the point in discussing with you? I'm not here to change your mind or to have you change my mind. I'm just here to have a sharing of thoughts with other people about the course the church is likely to go in in the future. As for a circular argument, it's not really intended to be an argument at all. I don't think you have a basis for this claim however I've given quite a lot of consideration to the other posters points.

    If you'll look back I've conceded points to quite a lot of people, but I don't consider some of your points to make sense and I explained why. You could have the courtesy to actually respond, or just not respond at all instead of breaking out into complaint about it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't agree with figures generally unless there is anything to back them up. That's why I generally have issue with hypothetical numbers. I think the best we could say is a large percent are encouraged by their family members, and a sizeable population join religions through evangelism or outreach by friends.

    I'm not saying that it's an exact figure but surely you can give some kind of an estimate?

    Btw, in many cases joining because of friends has pretty much the same motivation as joining because of parents. It's often (note not always) a form of peer pressure


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I'm not saying that it's an exact figure but surely you can give some kind of an estimate?

    I don't find much meaning in giving percentages. You could be very right at 95%, but you also could be very wrong in actuality. I find it best to express it in verbal terms. I would say that a majority do come to faith through their parents but there are also a lot of other opportunities by which one can come to faith. If you don't mind I think it's best to leave it on that understanding :)
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Btw, in many cases joining because of friends has pretty much the same motivation as joining because of parents. It's often (note not always) a form of peer pressure

    I don't think that peer pressure really applies in say a friend asking you to go to church or explaining to you about Jesus Christ and what He did. It's very possible to say no, and a lot of people (probably the vast majority) of those who hear will say no.

    In the interest of carrying on the discussion somewhat on topic :)

    What dead wood do you think Christians are likely to take away from Christianity in the next few years?

    I'll wait till a sizeable amount of people respond to the question before replying myself on this one :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't find much meaning in giving percentages. You could be very right at 95%, but you also could be very wrong in actuality. I find it best to express it in verbal terms. I would say that a majority do come to faith through their parents but there are also a lot of other opportunities by which one can come to faith. If you don't mind I think it's best to leave it on that understanding :)
    I'd really rather not because that understanding allows you to keep asserting that a sizeable number of people come to religion of their own volition but I don't believe that to be the case and the statistics support my position. Even you, though you wrestled with it for a while, settled on the religion of your parents and peers. I'd say that's very common tbh, most people, if not all, will wrestle with it at some point unless religion makes no difference in their lives and they're actually christian in name only

    Can you provide any support for your assertion that a sizeable number of people choose a religion different to that of their parents and peers?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think that peer pressure really applies in say a friend asking you to go to church or explaining to you about Jesus Christ and what He did. It's very possible to say no, and a lot of people (probably the vast majority) of those who hear will say no.
    It's possible to say no to smoking and drinking and drugs too but many people still don't. People want to be accepted by their peers and so there is always pressure to conform. Having the option to say no doesn't change that
    Jakkass wrote: »
    In the interest of carrying on the discussion somewhat on topic :)

    What dead wood do you think Christians are likely to take away from Christianity in the next few years?

    I think you're asking the wrong people tbh. I know that in another thread you listed a load of reasons why people would become atheists and they included things like the hypocrisy of the church and other things about the inner workings that we might not agree with but that actually has very little to do with atheism

    Most atheists are atheists because there is no evidence of god, simple as that. Whether christians are hypocritical or not does not change the probability of the existence or non existence of god. The only real answer you're likely to get here is "provide more evidence" but that's not going to happen because we've already seen all the evidence that exists


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Can you provide any support for your assertion that a sizeable number of people choose a religion different to that of their parents and peers?

    Of course this is of questionable accuracy, but if we take the figures cited on Wikipedia for this (before anyone moans, this is a light discussion and I'm not going to research the world and beyond, if I can be proved wrong, I will accept it and concede my point).

    We are talking about a net gain of 23,000 a day in the developing world all formerly non-Christians, a net decline of 7600 in the Western world. Other figures say that roughly 6,000 former Muslims a day convert to Christianity but this is most likely included in the figure for the developing world?

    If we do the maths:
    23000 - 7600 = 15400
    15400 * 365 = 5621000

    So we are nearly talking about 6 million people a year.

    If I want to go on about individuals, Ravi Zacharias converted from Hinduism to Christianity after seeing a vision of Jesus, and of course we have Masab Youcef who was an ex-Muslim who rejected Islam in jail and was converted to Christianity by a foreign tourist in Jerusalem after being released from the Megido prison. He now has asylum in the USA. No doubt I could also find many more. Masab Youcef is particularly interesting because he had to leave his family and all that he had to have new life because of His faith. It wasn't a rash decision by any means.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's possible to say no to smoking and drinking and drugs too but many people still don't. People want to be accepted by their peers and so there is always pressure to conform. Having the option to say no doesn't change that

    Without emphasising too much that the analogy isn't a good one :)

    I don't think that this really occurs all that much in any context that I have seen. Infact if I asked that question to anyone I would expect people to say no. As for a pressure to conform, I don't know what pressure I could possibly put on anyone to convert to Christianity. If I may quote Muhammad of Islam "there is no compulsion in religion".
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I think you're asking the wrong people tbh. I know that in another thread you listed a load of reasons why people would become atheists and they included things like the hypocrisy of the church and other things about the inner workings that we might not agree with but that actually has very little to do with atheism

    Fair enough. It probably is the wrong place to ask it but it is on the right track of the thread. I think we can agree with that much?
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Most atheists are atheists because there is no evidence of god, simple as that. Whether christians are hypocritical or not does not change the probability of the existence or non existence of god. The only real answer you're likely to get here is "provide more evidence" but that's not going to happen because we've already seen all the evidence that exists

    I'm not sure if I agree with that all that much. I think many atheists have intellectual difficulties with Christianity, but I think there are many other reasons that aren't as vocalised such as the treatment of religion on people in the past, and how morals are incompatible with peoples lifestyles.

    I was talking to a friend of mine about Christianity before in a calm manner. He is an agnostic, and his dad is a Muslim, and his mum is a Catholic. He said to me that he felt that he would have an identity crisis if he ever adopted Christianity. I have no reason to believe that there are other reasons apart from the intellectual and the nitty gritty why people don't believe. It might be the case that this is why you believe, but I am not sure if many atheists and agnostics hold purely intellectual difficulties or even that a majority do.

    To keep in on topic, there is nothing that you can think that will change in Christianity if we are to agree with the article that Dawkins is great at carpenting religions he has no interest in? :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Of course this is of questionable accuracy, but if we take the figures cited on Wikipedia for this (before anyone moans, this is a light discussion and I'm not going to research the world and beyond, if I can be proved wrong, I will accept it and concede my point).

    We are talking about a net gain of 23,000 a day in the developing world all formerly non-Christians, a net decline of 7600 in the Western world. Other figures say that roughly 6,000 former Muslims a day convert to Christianity but this is most likely included in the figure for the developing world?

    If we do the maths:
    23000 - 7600 = 15400
    15400 * 365 = 5621000

    So we are nearly talking about 6 million people a year.
    Firstly, that counts as "and peers" and secondly I don't really care about Africa and third world countries in general because there are other factors involved such as missionaries. It's in their interests to be christians because the christians are the ones with the money. These people did not go through a process of wrestling with themselves and eventually embracing the one true religion, it's the done thing at the moment. They're conforming just like most people
    Jakkass wrote: »
    If I want to go on about individuals, Ravi Zacharias converted from Hinduism to Christianity after seeing a vision of Jesus, and of course we have Masab Youcef who was an ex-Muslim who rejected Islam in jail and was converted to Christianity by a foreign tourist in Jerusalem after being released from the Megido prison. He now has asylum in the USA. No doubt I could also find many more. Masab Youcef is particularly interesting because he had to leave his family and all that he had to have new life because of His faith. It wasn't a rash decision by any means.
    No I don't, I know there are some isolated examples. I'm looking for a statistically significant number of people who did what you did, ie rejected the religion of their parents but unlike you, did not go back to it. And who didn't do it for selfish or conformist reasons

    There was a guard in Guantanemo bay who converted to Islam based on listening to the prisoners. That's so rare it made the news!
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Without emphasising too much that the analogy isn't a good one :)

    I don't think that this really occurs all that much in any context that I have seen. Infact if I asked that question to anyone I would expect people to say no. As for a pressure to conform, I don't know what pressure I could possibly put on anyone to convert to Christianity. If I may quote Muhammad of Islam "there is no compulsion in religion".

    Of course no one would say they're a christian because of pressure to conform.

    What pressure do you think could be put on someone to smoke? You say it's not a good analogy but I don't see how. If people can be convinced to do something that has been proven to be lethal to fit in what makes you think it's impossible to pressure them into accepting your version of eternal life?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm not sure if I agree with that all that much. I think many atheists have intellectual difficulties with Christianity, but I think there are many other reasons that aren't as vocalised such as the treatment of religion on people in the past, and how morals are incompatible with peoples lifestyles.
    There is a lot of morality in the bible that I disagree with but that has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it comes from God. You're confusing rejecting religion with not believing in it. I also disagree with George Bush but that's very different to saying he doesn't exist

    Jakkass wrote: »
    To keep in on topic, there is nothing that you can think that will change in Christianity if we are to agree with the article that Dawkins is great at
    To be honest, the thing that is required for christianity to make a come back is a war or a famine or something that makes people afraid and desperate. Desperate people need something like religion to rely on but affluent, comfortable people not so much


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Firstly, that counts as "and peers" and secondly I don't really care about Africa and third world countries in general because there are other factors involved such as missionaries. It's in their interests to be christians because the christians are the ones with the money. These people did not go through a process of wrestling with themselves and eventually embracing the one true religion, it's the done thing at the moment. They're conforming just like most people

    Right, but you do realise this is the point? I also think you are oversimplifying missionary activity if you are saying that it is about money. The point was you said that followers don't come from other sources apart from parents teaching them really. You've just answered your own question essentially here. Missionaries do have quite a large impact. To gain a fuller idea of what we are talking about we have to consider all the possibilities instead of just assuming "ah well it was the parents". Would you agree with me?
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No I don't, I know there are some isolated examples. I'm looking for people who did what you did, ie rejected the religion of their parents but unlike you, did not go back to it. And who didn't do it for selfish or conformist reasons

    When you look around the world things like this are more prevalent than you think.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Of course no one would say they're a christian because of pressure to conform.

    Fair enough.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    What pressure do you think could be put on someone to smoke? You say it's not a good analogy but I don't see how. If people can be convinced to do something that has been proven to be lethal what makes you think it's impossible to pressure them into accepting your version of eternal life?

    I don't consider it a good analogy due to the health damage from smoking :)(N.B Not willing to get into a discussion about the so called "damage" involved with religion)

    I don't wish to pressure anyone to religion at all. People might be manipulative in religion and I think this isn't what Christianity is about. I think people having free choice and thought are better than people who are fearmongered into joining. So yes, I concede in part to you.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    There is a lot of morality in the bible that I disagree with but that has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it comes from God. You're confusing rejecting religion with not believing in it. I also disagree with George Bush but that's very different to saying he doesn't exist

    Fair point.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    To be honest, the thing that is required for christianity to make a come back is a war or a famine or something that makes people afraid and desperate. Desperate people need something like religion to rely on but affluent, comfortable people not so much

    This hasn't been the case historically. I don't understand why such an act would be necessary especially given the circumstances of myself and others although having education have seen Christianity as reasonable. I guess I'm just insane :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Right, but you do realise this is the point? I also think you are oversimplifying missionary activity if you are saying that it is about money. The point was you said that followers don't come from other sources apart from parents teaching them really. You've just answered your own question essentially here. Missionaries do have quite a large impact. To gain a fuller idea of what we are talking about we have to consider all the possibilities instead of just assuming "ah well it was the parents". Would you agree with me?
    No I wouldn't. You can't use one rule to cover the whole world and every person who converts. I'm only interested in people who made an intellectual, independent, individual decision to switch religions such as Ravi Zacharias but on a much wider scale and the rise of Christianity in Africa is not an example of that. People who switched because the people with the money were telling them to switch or because it's the current social norm actually prove my point, not yours. You can see the difference here yes?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    When you look around the world things like this are more prevalent than you think.
    such as.......
    Baring in mind I want statistics and not a few isolated examples

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't consider it a good analogy due to the health damage from smoking :)(N.B Not willing to get into a discussion about the so called "damage" involved with religion)
    I'm sorry Jakkass but that that doesn't make any sense. How is it due to the health damage from smoking?

    Smoking damages your health and everyone knows this. And yet people can still be convinced to do it to fit in. So why would it be more difficult to pressure someone into something something that is apparently not damaging at all and is supposed to be the greatest thing in the universe? Do you think it's just that you don't see it as pressuring because you think you're just telling the truth?

    It's not even that people are deliberately being manipulative or vindictive. They really believe what they're saying when they're convincing people. It's human nature to conform to social norms

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Fair point.
    yay \o/
    Jakkass wrote: »
    This hasn't been the case historically. I don't understand why such an act would be necessary especially given the circumstances of myself and others although having education have seen Christianity as reasonable. I guess I'm just insane :)
    Ah but my whole point is that people such as yourself are very much in the minority. The vast majority of people just go with the flow


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No I wouldn't. You can't use one rule to cover the whole world and every person who converts. I'm only interested in people who made an intellectual, independent, individual decision to switch religions such as Ravi Zacharias but on a much wider scale and the rise of Christianity in Africa is not an example of that. People who switched because the people with the money were telling them to switch or because it's the current social norm actually prove my point, not yours. You can see the difference here yes?

    Yes of course there are other factors. The point is that we cannot always assume about peoples religious identities and then coming from their parents. That's really what I wanted to get across. I think both you and I would note that that point has been made adequately by now.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    such as.......
    Baring in mind I want statistics and not a few isolated examples

    I'm just saying that it is the case for quite a lot of people.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I'm sorry Jakkass but that that doesn't make any sense. How is it due to the health damage from smoking?

    I don't mean that they are convinced by this. I mean that by the smoking example you are implying that religion is harmful to peoples health. Apologies, that was my fault for lack of clarity.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Smoking damages your health and everyone knows this. And yet people can still be convinced to do it to fit in. So why would it be more difficult to pressure someone into something something that is apparently not damaging at all and is supposed to be the greatest thing in the universe? Do you think it's just that you don't see it as pressuring because you think you're just telling the truth?

    Yes, but I don't think the two circumstances are like with like. I don't think people join Christianity because it's "cool" or to fit in generally. I'm struggling to get the reference to pressure really in this whole discussion we are having. Ultimately people will decide to believe in whatever they decide to believe in even if people are coerced to do so. You've surely heard of the idea of crypto-Judaism by now? If not look it up.

    By pressuring I would assume that there would be some kind of intimidation involved. I don't think I've intimidated anyone to accept it as truth through my speaking to them. I don't think it's much relevant to what we are discussing anyway. We've moved on from how people generally find faith to tactics used by those advocating it.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's not even that people are deliberately being manipulative or vindictive. They really believe what they're saying when they're convincing people. It's human nature to conform to social norms

    Would you consider the same if I said that this was also true for secular movements?

    Anyhow, people are deliberately manipulative and vindictive in spreading religion, that was the point I was making.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Ah but my whole point is that people such as yourself are very much in the minority. The vast majority of people just go with the flow

    When you take every attribute about me and compile it together, it's very unlikely you will find someone like me. That's the same for everyone I think :)

    Carrying on. If you mean in religiosity, perhaps there isn't a majority. Then again Jesus said that those who would be on His path would be in a minority so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement