A quote from the article: "In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults."
I doubt that the true unaffiliated percentage has changed that much over such a short time period. I think these numbers actually reflect people's willingness to reveal that they're unaffiliated, in other words, to publicly "come out" as atheists or agnostics.
Don't get me wrong -- I see this as a good thing overall, I just think the reason for the change is not what it seems. The first step is to discover religion has nothing to offer an intelligent person. The second step is to be willing to let your neighbors know what you've decided, to "come out". The second step is often much harder.
But the big change is still a long way off -- the day an atheist can run for president without being laughed off the stage.
While I think this "coming out" is an intelligent observation, I don't agree with your "first step", discovering what religion (not) has to offer to a person. With that comment I can't upvote the entire statement.
To start with, it probably offers a sense of community. It can also help bridge gaps between different parts of our society. I appreciate the charity work. However, I'm part of the 20%, so I'm standing at the sidelines on this one.
Then why don't we? Or, rather, can you name some groupings that provide the impulse toward community which aren't religious or quasi-religious (such as freemasonry)? The only two I can think of offhand are RPG gaming groups and the Lions Club.
>> You can have all those things without religion.
> Then why don't we?
That's easy to answer -- religions hunt down and kill all members of communities other than their own. In "civilized" western societies, religions instead argue endlessly against any ideas or communities that differ from their own, eventually wearing down their opponents:
"Republican Congressman says evolution is 'lie from hell'":
Another reason, less important, is that the glue of religion is stronger than the glue of simple human companionship, to the degree that one simply cannot escape.
> To start with, it probably offers a sense of community.
With all respect, the religious aspect of a human community is a coincidence -- on can have a community without the religious context. I personally think it's an unfortunate accident of history that so many human communities are built on a scaffolding of religion.
> It can also help bridge gaps between different parts of our society.
It is here that you touch an important point, indeed a critical one. History shows us that, overall, religion creates gaps, it doesn't mend them. For each religious endeavor to reach across a chasm between people, there are ten religious endeavors to create the chasm in the first place.
> First you say the religious aspect of communities is coincidental then you say that religion forms chasm-surrounded communities. Which is it?
The dichotomy you think you see doesn't exist. They're both true.
Let me spell it out for you:
* The fact that many human communities are religious is a coincidence, an accident of history.
* Those religions that do form, tend to isolate themselves from other communities, sometimes by trying to convert or kill everyone they meet. This doesn't prevent them from being a community, any more than a community of rattlesnakes is not a legitimate community solely on the ground that it's dangerous to surrounding communities.
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
So the rules are out there, but nearly no one reads them. Also, the sentence "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity", taken out of context, might seem to allow any topic a poster might judge interesting.
Problem 2: As HN becomes more popular, the discipline of the small, specialized audience evaporates. This happens to all growing online communities over time. I saw this happen on a number of occasions during the old Usenet days, 20 years ago.
In short, it's an inevitable consequence of having a growing audience of contributors and readers, not all of whom fit the description of "hacker".
Thanks for your response..I deleted my original response because after reading the guidelines I noticed one that says "don't complain about things not being appropriate for HN, flag them instead". Which makes sense. I guess you just have to take the lumps with your oatmeal and not complain about it.
Without going into religious talk, one of the things I'm interested in with the growing acceptance of religious unaffiliation is the gap left by churches/synagogues/etc.
As a decidedly non-religious person raised in a Christian household, I grew to love the sense of community and charity fostered by the organization. With the current trend of urban migration, I'm not sure what's going to replace that.
I think this is more of a reflection of the current state of religion in the country and its move to the extremes rather than a change in people's beliefs.
Religion has become so occupied in polarizing issues (e.g. politics) and scandals, that belonging to one of these organization's has changed from being part of a philosophy/community to an extremist organization.
Don't get me wrong I'm a strong contingent of the 20% but I believe there is a place for religion as well. I believe that religion has both the ability to be productive for a community as well as very destructive for an individual.
The founders got it right with the first amendment and the separation of church and state. It's too bad that the same people who clutch the constitution so firmly in one hand also carry the bible in the other these days.
So, if I understand you correctly, an (for example) ex-southern-baptist (by upbringing) would be far more loathe to consider going to a (for example) Unitarian/Universalist church or even become a Buddhist than to forego religion altogether?
As someone who was brought up religious but now does not go to church/temple - I would probably fit your mold.
However, I would be interested in joining some community organization just to get that greater sense of belonging that I'm sure I could use.
18 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 47.3 ms ] threadI doubt that the true unaffiliated percentage has changed that much over such a short time period. I think these numbers actually reflect people's willingness to reveal that they're unaffiliated, in other words, to publicly "come out" as atheists or agnostics.
Don't get me wrong -- I see this as a good thing overall, I just think the reason for the change is not what it seems. The first step is to discover religion has nothing to offer an intelligent person. The second step is to be willing to let your neighbors know what you've decided, to "come out". The second step is often much harder.
But the big change is still a long way off -- the day an atheist can run for president without being laughed off the stage.
To start with, it probably offers a sense of community. It can also help bridge gaps between different parts of our society. I appreciate the charity work. However, I'm part of the 20%, so I'm standing at the sidelines on this one.
> Then why don't we?
That's easy to answer -- religions hunt down and kill all members of communities other than their own. In "civilized" western societies, religions instead argue endlessly against any ideas or communities that differ from their own, eventually wearing down their opponents:
"Republican Congressman says evolution is 'lie from hell'":
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/republican-...
Another reason, less important, is that the glue of religion is stronger than the glue of simple human companionship, to the degree that one simply cannot escape.
I go to many music jams that consist of religious and non-religious musicians to about equal proportions.
e.g. http://www.stanford.edu/group/Humanists/, http://www.americanhumanist.org/
I don't personally partake in these communities, but they exist for people who have a need for the non-religious aspects of religion.
With all respect, the religious aspect of a human community is a coincidence -- on can have a community without the religious context. I personally think it's an unfortunate accident of history that so many human communities are built on a scaffolding of religion.
> It can also help bridge gaps between different parts of our society.
It is here that you touch an important point, indeed a critical one. History shows us that, overall, religion creates gaps, it doesn't mend them. For each religious endeavor to reach across a chasm between people, there are ten religious endeavors to create the chasm in the first place.
Which is it?
The dichotomy you think you see doesn't exist. They're both true.
Let me spell it out for you:
* The fact that many human communities are religious is a coincidence, an accident of history.
* Those religions that do form, tend to isolate themselves from other communities, sometimes by trying to convert or kill everyone they meet. This doesn't prevent them from being a community, any more than a community of rattlesnakes is not a legitimate community solely on the ground that it's dangerous to surrounding communities.
Clear now?
Problem 1: there's no easily accessible, concisely worded description of HN's purpose. After a few click-throughs, I find:
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html --
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
So the rules are out there, but nearly no one reads them. Also, the sentence "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity", taken out of context, might seem to allow any topic a poster might judge interesting.
Problem 2: As HN becomes more popular, the discipline of the small, specialized audience evaporates. This happens to all growing online communities over time. I saw this happen on a number of occasions during the old Usenet days, 20 years ago.
In short, it's an inevitable consequence of having a growing audience of contributors and readers, not all of whom fit the description of "hacker".
As a decidedly non-religious person raised in a Christian household, I grew to love the sense of community and charity fostered by the organization. With the current trend of urban migration, I'm not sure what's going to replace that.
Religion has become so occupied in polarizing issues (e.g. politics) and scandals, that belonging to one of these organization's has changed from being part of a philosophy/community to an extremist organization.
Don't get me wrong I'm a strong contingent of the 20% but I believe there is a place for religion as well. I believe that religion has both the ability to be productive for a community as well as very destructive for an individual.
The founders got it right with the first amendment and the separation of church and state. It's too bad that the same people who clutch the constitution so firmly in one hand also carry the bible in the other these days.
As someone who was brought up religious but now does not go to church/temple - I would probably fit your mold.
However, I would be interested in joining some community organization just to get that greater sense of belonging that I'm sure I could use.