On most days, I think people should allow to worship however they want. And then there are days when my government quote the Bible to support laws that are otherwise indefensible.
It's true that religion has engendered a great deal of evil throughout history. It seems like almost every major atrocity has been religiously motivated in some way.
However, if you look at Georgia for example, you'll see that suppressing religion doesn't do much. Even if you took the harshest anti-theist position, you'd have to admit that people simply need to choose to stop being religious. It's difficult or even impossible to force the issue.
So even if you dislike religion, the answer is still a secular society with freedom of religion and a healthy religious tolerance.
They didn’t commit them in the name of atheism, they committed them in the name of economic and social revolutions of which atheism played a relatively small part compared to communist ideology. By comparison with “in the name of god” there is no honest comparison.
@Jumpcrisscross: One can make similar arguments for the Crusades.
Then why not make that argument? Remember to put “Deus Vult” in that context.
Of course they did since the pretty much first they did was to imprison in concentration camps the clergy, and destroy all religious buildings as well.
“Pretty much” is doing yeoman’s work there, bravo. I like how it also glosses over the fact that most of what happened was anti-money, anti-status, and anti-intellectual.
Of course they did since the pretty much first they did was to imprison in concentration camps the clergy, and destroy all religious buildings as well. This comment is so incredibly naive.
Gloss over? The parent poster buried it in concrete! The Soviets and Chinese killed more than everyone before them, combined.
And you are 100% spot on - evil will use and abuse anything in pursuit of its goals. But those people that we clearly identify as evil - they were utterly convinced of the righteousness of their actions, whether it was Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, or the terrorists of the 21st century.
Stalin himself was educated at a theological seminary. You should also be aware that Stalin drew upon the ideas of divine right that previous monarchs of Russia had used to claim authority. He used the Russian Orthodox church to grant himself legitimacy, and that church never left his side even through all of the atrocities. To this day, they create iconography of Stalin (typically with a halo).
Either way, this is decidedly NOT secularism.
I certainly didn't "gloss over" anything, having given approximately equal time to talking about religion and the suppression thereof. That's entirely unfair, by the way, since it's hard to find examples of the latter, while history is replete with examples of the former.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. When the books your religion is drawing from glorify murder, subjugation, genocide, etc it's hardly a misuse of that religion to encourage or commit the same.
> It seems like almost every major atrocity has been religiously motivated in some way.
You seem to forget that what Stalin and Mao did in their respective countries, leading to the direct death of probably in the area of 50 to 100 millions people if not more, was completely anti-religious and can be pretty much considered as the greatest atrocity in History EVER. So, no, religion is probably not the root of all evil.
Many religions have sponsored wars of conquest and forceful indoctrination. The choice of belief in Communism or [this space intentionally left blank] was still up to the individual, though youthful indoctrination has been shown to be generally effective throughout history.
> The choice of belief in Communism or [this space intentionally left blank] was still up to the individual
That is a fake choice, since any hint of criticism led you straight to the Gulag. There's enough books about the period to check what actually happened in Russia and China.
Criticizing religion has often risked death or imprisonment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition is perhaps the most well known due to the use of torture. In theory they limited themselves to the baptized, but as baptism occurred so young that's a meaningless distinction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anusim is interesting as it's a category of forced conversion, but makes no mention of what they where forced to Catholic/Islam/whatever. When communism outlawed other religions it was doing the same thing as occurred in many other times and places.
PS: As an American it's very easy to internalize freedom of religion and separation of church and state. But, historically and even today that's far from universal.
After really thinking about what I posted really gave me an appreciation of their value.
The irony is that there’s nothing more offensive to an observing Christian than when politicians try to quote the Bible. They don’t believe it, they misquote it and take things out of context all the time.
The second most offense thing is how many people who claim to be “enlightened and tolerant” liberals are openly hateful and bigoted toward Christianity.
Just because younger people don't worship God doesn't mean they don't worship other things now, their new God is consumerism and their new Gurus and guides are celebrities and pornstars
Ever heard of RNGesus? And how often have you seen the "worship the guru" gesture seen used half-jokingly around tech or gamedev luminaries? How often do you hear "technology" referred to as if it's some actual resource or active entity, not to mention savior? Ever heard of followers of YouTube/whatever personalities [sic] going on crusades against the heathen followers of someone else?
That said, of course it's not "the young people" who came up with consumerism. But that doesn't mean it can't go on or get worse. I know externally derived identification when I see it, and at most "these days" the consumption became more virtual. No precious metals or fine clothes thank you very much, certainly no space to live, and no nature to enjoy -- just feuding rap artists, game and movie fans of "brands" and "franchises". Come to think of it... 30 years ago nobody would have said "I like the Star Wars franchise", it would have been "the Star Wars movies". No religious cults you say, but explain the ocean of Kool-Aid. "Hunting achievements", collecting virtual trinkets, and likes for photos.
Sure, you can say it's totally different. But to me that's like Evangelical Christians talking about how they don't have a religion, but a relationship to Jesus Christ etc. Call it however you want.
According to Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now, younger people have emancipative views at a higher rate than older generations. They tend to support their LGBT friends and family, same sex marriage, gender and race pay equality, immigration, and other ideas that are meant to increase the freedoms of marginalized groups. Not all religions oppose these things, but the organizations that most fervently oppose these things today often do so for religious reasons.
This may be one explanation for why religious adherence is diminishing among younger people.
This is the premise of Neil Gaiman’s “American Gods”.
You’re right in some sense, I think. Young people may have somewhat replaced their parent’s faith based beliefs with their own - in this case it could be something like “if I engage in celebrity worship I could become a celebrity myself”.
Even if that were true, it’s more likely to come true than their parents beliefs!
People are comparing my comment as if the modern day of celeb worship has no problems, yes we don't have girls in churches but instead girls with massive image and body issues, or depression caused by use of social media etc. Yeh sure we have less doctrines and more rights but are we actually happier?
It's tempting to view this as being about trends, but there's a maturity element as well. Young people tend to want to try different things. They also haven't experienced much hardship or given much thought to (life after) death. For many people, religion only comes into the picture when life gets serious.
The data in the study broadly contradicts the insecurity argument - belief/adherence to religion is generally higher the lower the lifespan/education level/economic disparity/GDP across a country's population. The long term studies of the USA referenced (because that is where they have the data long term) shows young people have not always deviated from old people in their religious convictions, either, so maturity is not a complete explanation.
I read all of that as hypothesis, are you talking about this part?
"Another theory is that differences in religious commitment reflect change during the life course. Although young adults often start out less religious than their elders, they tend to become more devout as they age, have children and begin to face their own mortality (or so the theory suggests)."
They have a lot of hypothesis that could all be true - i.e. the younger people who started off with a lower percentage religious as measured would end up with a higher percentage religious if measured as a group later, but still less than the current age group measured right now.
Or maybe this one?
While not ruling out the influence of other factors – such as when and where people live – one research team argued that “life course trajectories may trump generational placement as predictors of religious behaviors and orientations.”
Lastly, they have the caveat that America is kind of special case with several contravening indicators, with some conditions among the best and among the worst.
I have never been religious, but anecdotally death has actually disenfranchised many of my previously religious friends and done nothing to persuade the nonbelievers... There are no miracles in modern healthcare, only science and humans.
Secular meditation does have wide appeal, and seems like a much healthier alternative free of dogmatic tradition.
UK passed >50% atheism some years back and is steadily becoming more so going on census. Ethnic minorities seem far more likely to retain some religion and keep the figures up. In my generation most were still given some Christian instruction, sent to Sunday school etc. The majority had grown out of it by adulthood. Church wedding might be chosen for pretty setting. Church school picked for children as it does well in local ratings.
Now I'm middle aged. Over the years quite a few formerly religious friends have become atheist or agnostic - often because life got serious. Of the few people I know who are still religious they are mostly old folks. Surely some of those life events would have triggered a few former atheists to find religion by now?
I just find it hard to believe I occupy wildly unrepresentative atheistic circles.
As an aside we often think the significant part that religion still seems to play in the US rather strange from this side of the Atlantic.
>UK passed >50% atheism some years back and is steadily becoming more so going on census.
Well, Ireland aside, the UK never had much of a religion to begin with (except back in times of John Fox or in the times of the druids). The English church is as close you can get to atheism while still being called Christian.
Shrugs, There are lots of things we don't know, that doesn't mean you wedge God in when we don't know something because eventually we probably will know that thing and then God is pushed back again.
I personally don't believe in God nor do I have any objection to other people believing in god except where they think their belief gives them special powers to influence things beyond 'one person, one say' then I get annoyed - fortunately I live in a largely secular country (and becoming more so) so it's not an issue I run into with much regularity.
Religion is a representation of man’s yearning to answer “why?”. Some questions don’t have answers and that’s okay. Having faith in the process of learning we realize that answers can be derived through logic and fact. God is a concept variable to represent the answer to that question for those who haven’t realized the purpose of such a concept. As such, time passes, more mysteries are unfolded, and there is less need for mystical thought.
(I feel that a take like this can be shared frankly between non-believers, but that when speaking to a crowd which is a mix it's disrespectful and analogous to proselytizing. I mean, clearly a believer is going to take issue with your usage of "perspective" here. OK, with that out of the way...)
The quote I like about questions is from Dawkins (one of the most aggressive proselytizers, sigh): the only unanswerable question is, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
At least in my experience, as a gen-X person in the US:
For at least a generation now, organized religions have been doing a poor job of addressing people's personal spiritual needs, while at the same time being the bastion of various sorts of social conservatism with justifications that often don't hold up in the context of modern scientific knowledge.
Now, I do think this is sometimes quite unfortunate, as it sometimes leaves these people easy prey to even less rationalistic religions and cults. (A certain amount of practice at various sorts of critical thinking may also immunize you against these things as well.)
> being the bastion of various sorts of social conservatism
Aren't they conservative out of necessity? You cannot rapidly change interpretation of the holy texts, and keep the congregation assured that you are true to the hundreds/thousands years of tradition/the words of the prophet.
Social progressivism does not require willingness to change holy texts. If you look at the Christian New Testament, most (though possibly not all, I don't claim encyclopedic knowledge of it) of the teachings Jesus line up quite well with social progressive values in the US today—things like caring for the poor, the sick, and immigrants and refugees.
The fact that the "religious right" is a thing in the US today doesn't particularly indicate that this is the natural order of things. While I'm no longer religious myself, much of my family still is, but identifies as part of the "Christian left," and pushes very strongly against the view that religious must necessarily equal Republican.
> Japan, religion is only very important for 10% of adults
Yet Japanese spend routinely 20 000 to 30 000 USD to have a religious (Buddhist) ceremony for their dead family members. Very generic statistics about vague opinions don't explain everything.
One can spend large amounts of money on a wedding without having a priest present to conduct the ceremony. That, too, is a cultural phenomenon, not purely a religious one.
the difference is whether you actually believe it or are just doing it for fun. you can sing a Christmas song or put on a Christmas hat for the fun of it and still be atheist for example. in Japan you can greet the new year at a temple becasue it's a fun activity to do with your friends and family and not because you actually believe in any deity blessings you
that said Japanese are superstitious (in general). not sure if more or less than other places
I spent two years at a Catholic high school. The most important lesson from that experience was the maxim that "you have to believe something" -- that class (senior religion) encouraged us to examine our beliefs. Many people adopt their parents' explanation for the world we live in. Others prefer the scientific explanation du jour ("of the day").
The old religions have become stale, but the hunger for spirituality persists.
Science has "true believers" too. These prostelytizers proclaim that that there is no need for spiritual hocus-pocus anymore, that Science has explanations for everything now, or at least they'll have it all figured out soon. This has been the Physicalist's sermon for ... maybe 170 years.
Spiritualism maintains that the life force is separate from the physical world we inhabit: the life force is what "animates" the bodies we take on for a while.
YODA: Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.
You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you,
me, the tree, the rock, everywhere. Yes, even between
this land and that ship.
People have experiences that cannot be explained by 'physicalism' all the time: out of body experiences, 'intuition', memory, telepathy, imagination, etc... My comment on this subject from 12 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17238552
It may be comforting to believe in something. That doesn't make it true. There is no evidence that any of the experiences people have that can't be explained are a result of supernatural causes.
When I was taxi driving, I found it useful to believe that I had an itinerary, and that my job was to be in the right place at the right time to meet the people who I was supposed to meet that day. Mr. "Who are your lifelines" [0] was a case in point. I was parked at a Quik Trip gas station, he asked if I was available, I took him somewhere, he saved my number. I later bailed him out of jail, and am going to be using his story to push for change in our criminal justice system.
> There is no evidence that any of the experiences people have that can't be explained are a result of supernatural causes.
This is slander for phenomenon which are not very well understood by the present state of knowledge. Radon/radiation poisoning would have been classified as "supernatural" by pre-1896 scientists ("science advances one funeral at a time"; I don't know how long it took for the possibility of 'radiation' to permeate the scientific culture).
> Radon/radiation poisoning would have been classified as "supernatural" by pre-1896 scientists
That is exactly my point. A lot of phenomena that were once the purview of religion are now explained by science. The reverse is never true (nothing explained by science has subsequently found a better explanation in religion)
Scientific explanations are always incomplete and approximations of an objective reality. Yes all Science has to make fundamental assumptions to function, we all have to make assumptions to function in the real world. There are fewer fundamental assumptions with Science then with religion. I am fallible, but I try believe in things based on evidence.
> Scientific explanations are [...] approximations of an objective reality.
There's one of your beliefs: that there is an "objective reality". I believe in a shared reality, and that each individual has their own subjective reality too. Everyone has their own experience of an event, and their own inner world (dreams, imagined experiences, etc).
I would also posit that there is no one "Science". Science is a process. Every individual who investigates the world forms their own conception of what has already been discovered, and what is worth investigating. 'Scientific Consensus' is an agreement about what good scientists are to believe. Simple matters are easy to form a consensus about; complex matters are still under discussion.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I'm pretty down on strong belief in general. I find it depressingly common that believers of any stripe come from a foundation of reaction and not introspection. Their ideologies need an "other" to be the anti of rather than standing alone. I see this in everything from politics to religion to clothing to food. Everyone is defining their ego against the perceived arrogance of some other group.
edit: After I made this comment in good faith I saw you were being downvoted. I just want to make it clear that I do not think your comment is downvote worthy and that I find both the pious and atheist guilty of what I describe.
It would be fascinating to see a meta study that ignores the traditional definition of organized religion and instead looks at “religious” characteristics. What are the behaviors that make Buddhism and Islam both religions?
Beliefs that a person holds deeply, holds on faith without requiring proof, bases their life choices on, and evangelizes as the truth.
By that measure, aetheist San Francisco is the most religious place I’ve ever lived. The religions focus on the right way living or eating, and the evangelism is off the charts.
I would argue that the younger generation isn’t significantly less religious, but rather that they’re all inventing new religions or following scattered and informal tribes online. It’s like a new philosophical primordial soup from which I suspect we will see organized and “formal” religions emerge given sufficient time.
> By that measure, aetheist San Francisco is the most religious place I’ve ever lived
You've constructed a loose definition of religion that approximates the common definition of culture. The term "religion" is generally reserved for "claims to relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements" [1]. (That said, "there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.")
A better term for the behavior you describe might be "zealotry."
I consider a lot of the arguments that come out of modern hype movements to be based on near supernatural reaches of selective logic and rationalization.
Also, I think that while parsing religion from culture would be a handy classification, they don’t really decouple that easy.
> near supernatural reaches of selective logic and rationalization
Near is not at. Conspiracy theorists aren't religious. They're just zealous. People become zealous about many things. What differentiates religion is the explicit invocation of supernatural causes. That delineation is meaningful, to the person making the claim as well as in society's treatment of the claim. (Particularly in the United States, where the Constitution treats religious zeal differently from secular zeal.)
> By that measure, aetheist[sic] San Francisco is the most religious place I’ve ever lived. The religions focus on the right way living or eating, and the evangelism is off the charts.
This should be a clue that your "measure" is a bad one.
When you use the word "religious" loosely like this, broader than "supernatural spirituality", I've noticed that it tends to make a certain set of people quite cross with you. It seems to violate the dogma of some very religious (broad sense) people who reject supernatural spirituality and therefore reject being called religious narrow sense. These people respond poorly to being called religious.
I think you're right. But it can be difficult to discuss the topic without either walking on eggshells or throwing caution to the wind and making people upset.
This text focuses on the religiousity of generations, and the comments below demonstrate that religiosity is a really squishy term.
I would be more interested in the more general notion of “values.” Every generation goes through some sort of rebellion against its previous generations. I’m interested in the general question of “to what extent does a younger generation hold/cling to the values imparted from their parents, including amongst others, traditions, religion, philosophies about governance and civics, etc.”
The article does not make much sense as it, at least for France.
We have a tremendous difference in the adoption of religions by age depending on the religion. There is no "average".
When I was a child in the 80's, I have never heard of Ramadan. My children, same age same school know everything about it. Same for hallal food.
When I see people of my age (mid-40) who as Muslims, their religiousness is medium to poor. The next generation is very much different, way more religious.
Atheists are more or less the same.
Catholics are in decline, except in some places where the tradition is strong (Versailles for instance).
So averaging "religion" over a whole country does not yield any sensible results in some countries. In other maybe.
73 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 87.7 ms ] threadHowever, if you look at Georgia for example, you'll see that suppressing religion doesn't do much. Even if you took the harshest anti-theist position, you'd have to admit that people simply need to choose to stop being religious. It's difficult or even impossible to force the issue.
So even if you dislike religion, the answer is still a secular society with freedom of religion and a healthy religious tolerance.
Evil people will harness whatever philosophy is convenient to justify their actions.
@Jumpcrisscross: One can make similar arguments for the Crusades.
Then why not make that argument? Remember to put “Deus Vult” in that context.
Of course they did since the pretty much first they did was to imprison in concentration camps the clergy, and destroy all religious buildings as well.
“Pretty much” is doing yeoman’s work there, bravo. I like how it also glosses over the fact that most of what happened was anti-money, anti-status, and anti-intellectual.
Of course they did since the pretty much first they did was to imprison in concentration camps the clergy, and destroy all religious buildings as well. This comment is so incredibly naive.
And you are 100% spot on - evil will use and abuse anything in pursuit of its goals. But those people that we clearly identify as evil - they were utterly convinced of the righteousness of their actions, whether it was Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, or the terrorists of the 21st century.
Stalin himself was educated at a theological seminary. You should also be aware that Stalin drew upon the ideas of divine right that previous monarchs of Russia had used to claim authority. He used the Russian Orthodox church to grant himself legitimacy, and that church never left his side even through all of the atrocities. To this day, they create iconography of Stalin (typically with a halo).
Either way, this is decidedly NOT secularism.
I certainly didn't "gloss over" anything, having given approximately equal time to talking about religion and the suppression thereof. That's entirely unfair, by the way, since it's hard to find examples of the latter, while history is replete with examples of the former.
It's more accurate to say religion was misused by many leaders hungry for power, fame, or treasure.
You seem to forget that what Stalin and Mao did in their respective countries, leading to the direct death of probably in the area of 50 to 100 millions people if not more, was completely anti-religious and can be pretty much considered as the greatest atrocity in History EVER. So, no, religion is probably not the root of all evil.
That is a fake choice, since any hint of criticism led you straight to the Gulag. There's enough books about the period to check what actually happened in Russia and China.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition is perhaps the most well known due to the use of torture. In theory they limited themselves to the baptized, but as baptism occurred so young that's a meaningless distinction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anusim is interesting as it's a category of forced conversion, but makes no mention of what they where forced to Catholic/Islam/whatever. When communism outlawed other religions it was doing the same thing as occurred in many other times and places.
After really thinking about what I posted really gave me an appreciation of their value.
The second most offense thing is how many people who claim to be “enlightened and tolerant” liberals are openly hateful and bigoted toward Christianity.
The electoral record of Bible-quoting politicians amongst religious voters would appear to contradict your point.
That said, of course it's not "the young people" who came up with consumerism. But that doesn't mean it can't go on or get worse. I know externally derived identification when I see it, and at most "these days" the consumption became more virtual. No precious metals or fine clothes thank you very much, certainly no space to live, and no nature to enjoy -- just feuding rap artists, game and movie fans of "brands" and "franchises". Come to think of it... 30 years ago nobody would have said "I like the Star Wars franchise", it would have been "the Star Wars movies". No religious cults you say, but explain the ocean of Kool-Aid. "Hunting achievements", collecting virtual trinkets, and likes for photos.
Sure, you can say it's totally different. But to me that's like Evangelical Christians talking about how they don't have a religion, but a relationship to Jesus Christ etc. Call it however you want.
This may be one explanation for why religious adherence is diminishing among younger people.
You’re right in some sense, I think. Young people may have somewhat replaced their parent’s faith based beliefs with their own - in this case it could be something like “if I engage in celebrity worship I could become a celebrity myself”.
Even if that were true, it’s more likely to come true than their parents beliefs!
"Another theory is that differences in religious commitment reflect change during the life course. Although young adults often start out less religious than their elders, they tend to become more devout as they age, have children and begin to face their own mortality (or so the theory suggests)."
They have a lot of hypothesis that could all be true - i.e. the younger people who started off with a lower percentage religious as measured would end up with a higher percentage religious if measured as a group later, but still less than the current age group measured right now.
Or maybe this one?
While not ruling out the influence of other factors – such as when and where people live – one research team argued that “life course trajectories may trump generational placement as predictors of religious behaviors and orientations.”
Lastly, they have the caveat that America is kind of special case with several contravening indicators, with some conditions among the best and among the worst.
Secular meditation does have wide appeal, and seems like a much healthier alternative free of dogmatic tradition.
UK passed >50% atheism some years back and is steadily becoming more so going on census. Ethnic minorities seem far more likely to retain some religion and keep the figures up. In my generation most were still given some Christian instruction, sent to Sunday school etc. The majority had grown out of it by adulthood. Church wedding might be chosen for pretty setting. Church school picked for children as it does well in local ratings.
Now I'm middle aged. Over the years quite a few formerly religious friends have become atheist or agnostic - often because life got serious. Of the few people I know who are still religious they are mostly old folks. Surely some of those life events would have triggered a few former atheists to find religion by now?
I just find it hard to believe I occupy wildly unrepresentative atheistic circles.
As an aside we often think the significant part that religion still seems to play in the US rather strange from this side of the Atlantic.
Well, Ireland aside, the UK never had much of a religion to begin with (except back in times of John Fox or in the times of the druids). The English church is as close you can get to atheism while still being called Christian.
That said -- just because young people don't claim religion is "very important" to them doesn't mean they don't have any sense of spirituality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
I personally don't believe in God nor do I have any objection to other people believing in god except where they think their belief gives them special powers to influence things beyond 'one person, one say' then I get annoyed - fortunately I live in a largely secular country (and becoming more so) so it's not an issue I run into with much regularity.
It's similar to how holders of doctorates say that their achievement makes more clear what they don't know.
There simply isn't any evidence for his/her/its/their existence.
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you”
The quote I like about questions is from Dawkins (one of the most aggressive proselytizers, sigh): the only unanswerable question is, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
For at least a generation now, organized religions have been doing a poor job of addressing people's personal spiritual needs, while at the same time being the bastion of various sorts of social conservatism with justifications that often don't hold up in the context of modern scientific knowledge.
Now, I do think this is sometimes quite unfortunate, as it sometimes leaves these people easy prey to even less rationalistic religions and cults. (A certain amount of practice at various sorts of critical thinking may also immunize you against these things as well.)
Aren't they conservative out of necessity? You cannot rapidly change interpretation of the holy texts, and keep the congregation assured that you are true to the hundreds/thousands years of tradition/the words of the prophet.
The fact that the "religious right" is a thing in the US today doesn't particularly indicate that this is the natural order of things. While I'm no longer religious myself, much of my family still is, but identifies as part of the "Christian left," and pushes very strongly against the view that religious must necessarily equal Republican.
Yet Japanese spend routinely 20 000 to 30 000 USD to have a religious (Buddhist) ceremony for their dead family members. Very generic statistics about vague opinions don't explain everything.
that said Japanese are superstitious (in general). not sure if more or less than other places
The old religions have become stale, but the hunger for spirituality persists.
Science has "true believers" too. These prostelytizers proclaim that that there is no need for spiritual hocus-pocus anymore, that Science has explanations for everything now, or at least they'll have it all figured out soon. This has been the Physicalist's sermon for ... maybe 170 years.
Spiritualism maintains that the life force is separate from the physical world we inhabit: the life force is what "animates" the bodies we take on for a while.
People have experiences that cannot be explained by 'physicalism' all the time: out of body experiences, 'intuition', memory, telepathy, imagination, etc... My comment on this subject from 12 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17238552[0] http://www.taxiwars.org/who-are-your-lifelines/
> There is no evidence that any of the experiences people have that can't be explained are a result of supernatural causes.
This is slander for phenomenon which are not very well understood by the present state of knowledge. Radon/radiation poisoning would have been classified as "supernatural" by pre-1896 scientists ("science advances one funeral at a time"; I don't know how long it took for the possibility of 'radiation' to permeate the scientific culture).
That is exactly my point. A lot of phenomena that were once the purview of religion are now explained by science. The reverse is never true (nothing explained by science has subsequently found a better explanation in religion)
1. Scientific explanations are often found to be incorrect.
2. Scientific explanations are often found to be incomplete.
3. Scientific explanations are often found to build on assumptions.
My posts in this thread are not so much about Religion, but about what do you believe. Everyone believes something. Why do you believe what you do?
There's one of your beliefs: that there is an "objective reality". I believe in a shared reality, and that each individual has their own subjective reality too. Everyone has their own experience of an event, and their own inner world (dreams, imagined experiences, etc).
I would also posit that there is no one "Science". Science is a process. Every individual who investigates the world forms their own conception of what has already been discovered, and what is worth investigating. 'Scientific Consensus' is an agreement about what good scientists are to believe. Simple matters are easy to form a consensus about; complex matters are still under discussion.
You don't need to care if they ever figure it all out to "believe in" science.
Quoting Yoda? Hollywood puts a white Anglo-Saxon, Christian, family message in almost every movie. It's also standard movie ending #1.
edit: After I made this comment in good faith I saw you were being downvoted. I just want to make it clear that I do not think your comment is downvote worthy and that I find both the pious and atheist guilty of what I describe.
Beliefs that a person holds deeply, holds on faith without requiring proof, bases their life choices on, and evangelizes as the truth.
By that measure, aetheist San Francisco is the most religious place I’ve ever lived. The religions focus on the right way living or eating, and the evangelism is off the charts.
I would argue that the younger generation isn’t significantly less religious, but rather that they’re all inventing new religions or following scattered and informal tribes online. It’s like a new philosophical primordial soup from which I suspect we will see organized and “formal” religions emerge given sufficient time.
You've constructed a loose definition of religion that approximates the common definition of culture. The term "religion" is generally reserved for "claims to relate humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements" [1]. (That said, "there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.")
A better term for the behavior you describe might be "zealotry."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Also, I think that while parsing religion from culture would be a handy classification, they don’t really decouple that easy.
Near is not at. Conspiracy theorists aren't religious. They're just zealous. People become zealous about many things. What differentiates religion is the explicit invocation of supernatural causes. That delineation is meaningful, to the person making the claim as well as in society's treatment of the claim. (Particularly in the United States, where the Constitution treats religious zeal differently from secular zeal.)
This should be a clue that your "measure" is a bad one.
I think you're right. But it can be difficult to discuss the topic without either walking on eggshells or throwing caution to the wind and making people upset.
I would be more interested in the more general notion of “values.” Every generation goes through some sort of rebellion against its previous generations. I’m interested in the general question of “to what extent does a younger generation hold/cling to the values imparted from their parents, including amongst others, traditions, religion, philosophies about governance and civics, etc.”
We have a tremendous difference in the adoption of religions by age depending on the religion. There is no "average".
When I was a child in the 80's, I have never heard of Ramadan. My children, same age same school know everything about it. Same for hallal food.
When I see people of my age (mid-40) who as Muslims, their religiousness is medium to poor. The next generation is very much different, way more religious.
Atheists are more or less the same.
Catholics are in decline, except in some places where the tradition is strong (Versailles for instance).
So averaging "religion" over a whole country does not yield any sensible results in some countries. In other maybe.