We’re a long way from the day when the United States could reasonably be described as a non-religious nation. But we’re getting there. It’s sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees, but the longer-term trends are pretty unambiguous. (Which is not to say it’s impossible they will someday reverse course.) I suspect that, hand-wringing about arrogance and “fundamentalist atheists” notwithstanding, the exhortations of Richard Dawkins and his ilk have had something to do with it. If nothing else, they provide clear examples of people who think it’s perfectly okay to not believe in God, and be proud of it. That’s not an insignificant factor. It’s most likely a small perturbation on top of more significant long-term cultural trends, but it’s there.
Newsweek reports the facts: the number of self-identified Christians in the U.S. has fallen by 10 points over the last twenty years, from 86 to 76 percent. The number of people who are unaffiliated with any religion has jumped forward, from 5 percent in 1988 to 12 percent today. And the number who are willing to label themselves “atheists” has, it’s reasonable to say, skyrocketed — from 1 million in 1990 to 3.6 million today. That’s still less than two percent of the population, so let’s not get carried away. But it’s double the number of Episcopalians! (I was raised as an Episcopalian. Always been a shameless front-runner.)
Here’s how Jon Meacham sums it up in Newsweek:
There it was, an old term with new urgency: post-Christian. This is not to say that the Christian God is dead, but that he is less of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory. To the surprise of liberals who fear the advent of an evangelical theocracy and to the dismay of religious conservatives who long to see their faith more fully expressed in public life, Christians are now making up a declining percentage of the American population.
I’ve said it before, but it’s time for us atheists to diversify our portfolio, as far as popular culture is concerned — skepticism and mocking of creationists are all well and good, but we need to put forward a positive agenda for living our lives without the comforting untruths handed down by religion. I’m doing my part by joining the Epicurus fan page on Facebook.
Haquiq,
1) The fact that this blog discusses atheism no more proves the existence of God than the fact that this blog is now discussing a-unicornism (as in, “I am convinced that unicorns do not exist.”) proves the existence of unicorns.
2) If God does not exist, there is no one to be ungrateful to. Of course, if God does exist, then this would be ungrateful; however, to postulate this is to beg the question.
So if Christianity disappears, what else will psychotic nutcases use to justify their horrible actions?
Nationalism?
Maoism?
Racial purity?
Liberation of the Symbionese?
Animal rights?
I see no evidence that the horrible things done ‘in the name of’ organized religion are in fact caused by religious affiliation. Nor do I think that the people who commit such actions would be better behaved under some other belief system.
Sean, no matter how much you aspire to achieve Dawkins’ recognition I doubt you will make it. Snide commentary is no substitute for scholarship.
People on this blog have said the following:
– Atheism is a perfectly rational position to take.
– Physics justifies atheism.
However, one can give a very strong argument that atheism is a highly irrational position and that physics does not justify atheism. The argument is the following:
According to the atheist worldview, everything that exists is space, time, elementary constituents of matter and forces among them, and all the phenomena we see can be explained by these elementary constituents and their motions. One also needs fundamental laws of motion, and here one has to decide whether the natural laws are separate entities from the spacetime and elementary constituents/forces or they are not.
If one opts for a position that natural laws are not separate entities, one arrives to the notion that natural laws are simply random periodical patterns in the motion of matter, which means that everything we know can desapear tomorrow. Another
consequence is that the fundamental explanation for any phenomenon is that it is a random ocurrence. Although a logically consistent position, this is an extremelly singular phylosophycal view, like solipsism, and not to say that it is completely opposite to the attitude taken by scientist (i.e. that the world can be comprehended).
The second option is to assume that the natural laws are separate entities from the basic set of spacetime and matter, and this leads directly to platonism, i.e. the view that abstract ideas have an independent existence outside spacetime. Then the ideas of God, unicorns, etc …, exist
and the question is what is their relation to our world.
An atheist
could still try to deny the existence of the idea of God on the grounds that there
are only finitely many natural laws, i.e. ideas, in the platonic world, but
this can be refuted by using the Goedel theorem: A theory of everything should explain mathematics, and by Goedel´s theorem
there is no closed mathematical system which contains the arithmetics. Hence one must have a platonic world with an infinite number of ideas.
Lab Lemming: “I see no evidence that the horrible things done ‘in the name of’ organized religion are in fact caused by religious affiliation. Nor do I think that the people who commit such actions would be better behaved under some other belief system.”
Do you honestly think that there would be so many suicide bombers if they didn’t believe in an afterlife? It takes a belief of that (or a similar) kind to overcome our survival instincts.
Matt you say “Do you honestly think that there would be so many suicide bombers if they didn’t believe in an afterlife? It takes a belief of that (or a similar) kind to overcome our survival instincts.”
Wrong, it takes extreme despair to overcome our survival instincts. And this despair is characteristic of suicide everywhere.
Aleksandar, you refer to the “atheist worldview” whereas such a thing doesn’t exist. The atheist position is simply one of unbelieve in a deity and does not necessarily extent to other philisophical areas. What you’re refering to here is a brand of naturalism, but there are different forms of naturalism and not every atheist accepts the ontological brand of naturalism. Methodological naturalism, for example, does not presuppose any limits on what exist. It is simply a requirement that we have to investigate nature as if it where all that there is, without commenting on whether anything else can exist.
Aleksandar Mikovic: “If one opts for a position that natural laws are not separate entities, one arrives to the notion that natural laws are simply random periodical patterns in the motion of matter, which means that everything we know can desapear tomorrow.”
The laws of physics have no existence in and of themselves, they’re merely a description of how nature behaves.
I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that natural laws are random periodic patterns. This is a major premise of your argument, but you do not justify it at all.
Hey, so what’s the status yo? Did any of you look into the miracles I mentioned above as proof that the supernatural exists and can influence the world in which we live?
“miracles”? 🙂 yeah right. In fact things like cancer sometimes do go away; it just happens very rarely.
You might see the segment in the Richard Dawkins special “The Root of All Evil” where nonsense such as this is discussed.
You might also take a good course in probability and statistics.
I’m a rationalist non-believer, an atheist if you will. However, I spend no time trying to convince religious folks to give up their beliefs, as they don’t try to convert or ‘save’ me. What I do demand is that religious beliefs founded on faith don’t destroy or supress my fundamental human rights, or the rights of others. Sharia law, etc. represent abominations to anyone that supports freedom and human dignity. Believe what you will, but when your beliefs become oppressive actions you will hear from me.
““miracles”? 🙂 yeah right. In fact things like cancer sometimes do go away; it just happens very rarely.”
Indeed, thinks like cancer do just go away. And when medicine cannot explain it, it’s because God did it. Booyaa! There you go, Ollie. Oh sure, our understanding of things like cancer and the human body is very limited, so perhaps such miraculous-looking healings can be explained biologically, but what about the Miracle of the Sun yo? At Fatima. And other such miracles. Now come on. Those miracles were done so that people will believe. Do YOU believe, Ollie? Don’t let the miracle go to waste, Dude.
I’m all for fighting the influence of fundamentalist idiots in domestic and foreign policy in the United States (and abroad, for that matter.) But if the general population perceives the main force against religious fundamentalism as a handful of atheists who hold themselves more highly than others because they’ve discovered some great truth about the universe, they won’t be too responsive. The truth is that religion, for better or worse, will almost definitely never be eliminated. It would be most effective to bolster the moderate elements of the politically active religious believers – the ones who advocate teaching actual science in public schools and work for diplomacy and peace over the raging war boner policies of the previous administration. They do in fact exist, and I’m sure they’ll have more of a voice in the current political climate.
According to the atheist worldview…
The wha…?
(shrug)
Doesn’t exist. Sorry.
No manifesto. No manuscript. No blueprint for world domination. No mysterious set of clubhouse rules. No secret handshake.
When you try and “read” into atheism something that isn’t there, you just end up sounding silly.
Not true. Suicide bombers are have to be coached intensely using extremist religious rhetoric before they agree to participate in such acts, and there are plenty of examples of suicide bombers who came from middle-class or wealthy families. Religious indoctrination is a vital part of the suicide bomber’s preparation.
And also note that without that indoctrination, there are no suicide bombers.
ree ree: there is no point in playing your whack-a-mole with your so-called miracles. Even if we debunked your “sun miracle” (there is nothing there that an unusual atmospheric phenomenon, a lot of credulity, a desire to be special, and a dash of hysteria cannot explain) you would simply come back with a different so-called miracle (goodness knows the Catholic tradition is chock full of them). I read the Wikipedia entry for that event and had to laugh when I saw at the bottom that Pope Pius claims to have had his own Fatima experience decades later. I guess he didn’t want to feel left out.
And now their trying to turn Pope John-Paul II into a saint because supposedly some guy with a brain tumor got better after fondling some rosary beads supposedly blessed by him. If that really happened, why aren’t those beads being used in every brain cancer ward in the country? Now, if all the cancer patients who touched those beads started were healed, there’s your irrefutable miracle. Yet, for some reason, no one is even willing to try.
Just wondering- what would the definition of a post-Christian America be exactly anyway? Because I’m on a trip around the world right now and have yet to go anywhere that I would consider post-religion (well maybe New Zealand, but that was a previous trip).
Before someone mentions Europe to me I ask this question because I’ve been in Europe the past month or so, working my way through Italy now, and while there are a lot of nonbelievers it doesn’t change the fact that the churches are the main tourist attraction and have priceless treasures in them. So there’s definitely still influence because of the sheer history and culture inspired by the church, even if people aren’t believers as such. Hopefully what I’m asking makes sense in that context.
“I read the Wikipedia entry for that event and had to laugh when I saw at the bottom that Pope Pius claims to have had his own Fatima experience decades later. I guess he didn’t want to feel left out.”
Hmmm…maybe he DID have his own Fatima experience. You don’t know, so don’t talk.
“And now their trying to turn Pope John-Paul II into a saint because supposedly some guy with a brain tumor got better after fondling some rosary beads supposedly blessed by him. If that really happened, why aren’t those beads being used in every brain cancer ward in the country? Now, if all the cancer patients who touched those beads started were healed, there’s your irrefutable miracle. Yet, for some reason, no one is even willing to try.”
Well, I suppose if doctors diagnosed that patient as having a brain tumor, and then the brain tumor disappeared after he prayed the Rosary (not “fondled with the rosary”, but used it to PRAY the rosary), there you go. A recent example of a miracle.
The beads didn’t do anything. Touching the beads doesn’t do anything. Rather, the prayers and faith of the patient involved. Also, the healing was probably meant to be a sign that, indeed, Pope John Paul II is in heaven so that it is OK to pray for his intercession. I can’t tell you why a healing like this doesn’t occur every time the rosary is prayed. Maybe this healing was only meant to be a sign that John Paul II is in heaven. Maybe God has a special plan for those people God heals. One cannot know.
So you string theorists go on believing the standard model is in the theory, and that the universe resulted in two branes colliding (something for which there is no evidence for), and I will go on believing in miracles such as these (for which there is definitely MORE evidence in its favor).
Good day.
ree ree, please watch this video concerning open-mindedness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
That’s a lot of “maybe”s, ree ree.
Maybe the Face on Mars is really evidence for an extraterrestrial civilization, maybe NASA never went to the Moon, maybe Islam and not Christianity is the one true religion (you don’t know, you weren’t there), maybe the pagan gods and unicorns really do exists, maybe Santa Claus does deliver billions of Christmas presents in a blink of an eye, maybe you are a figment of my imagination and we’re all living in The Matrix… Maybe it’s all just a load of bunk…
ree ree, yet when they actually researched the power of prayer with people who had undergone major heart surgery, those prayed for did statistically worse than those who weren’t prayed for. In fact, due to those results, which most xians are unaware of, when a religious troller now ends a post by saying that they will pray for me, I usually respond by asking them not to threaten me. All other research involving prayer, has had results, that at best (to those who consider it important anyway) been neutral, i.e. no effect.
Another irony noted in Sagan’s Demon Haunted World. If you add up all the so called miracles at Lourdes, accepting for sake of argument that they are genuine religious miracles, fewer people have been cured visiting Lourdes than if they had simply stayed at home waiting on pure chance to cure them.
So much for miracles.
@ree-ree…
I fear the Epicurus videos would be a little too much for you. You might want to start with this one first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFO6ZhUW38w
ree ree: why don’t miracles get done by the truckload, out in the open so they aren’t the result of “random noise”?
Dude, you should write a “poe” blog; you’d be good at it. 😉
Then perhaps you need to check again what an atheist is.
I don’t mean to be sarcastic so please don’t take offence.
I honestly think you should check out what atheism is.
Ollie’s description was right on the money.
“Cedric Katesby Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
If that’s where you are then…don’t be spooked by the word “atheist”.
http://www.atheist-experience.com/
Actively denying the possibility of a god is just as silly as actively affirming the existence of a god.
Actively denying the possibility of Bigfoot/Santa Clause/Zeus/ is just as silly as actively affirming the existence of a Bigfoot/Santa Claus/Zeus.
Maybe there is a Bigfoot. Maybe. Yet there’s no reason to believe in one based on the evidence so far.”
Atheist is the definition I am going off of (compare to agnostic). It sounds to me like an atheist would have little uncertainty about his disbelief in god/s. Also, I’ve never liked bigfoot, unicorn, etc. analogies for a couple reasons. They always strike me as less of an argument and more a way of making fun of god by comparing god to a unicorn since they are usually more testable concepts. For example, my NW camping experience could be considered evidence against a bigfoot (sans bigfoot siting).
I’m convinced that this terminology ends up being largely a function of culture. A few years back I was having a conversation with a friend of mine and evolution came up. He said he did not believe in it and I kind of probed, “which part?” He went on to explain that he subscribed to a sort of clockmaker, deist type god. He believed in and understood all the sorts of things people learn in a college biology 101 course yet he called himself a creationist. After hearing what he thought I would have never opted to use the term creationist to describe him.
Kevin,
That was a great video. But I do have an explanation for the guy with the brain tumor going away after praying the rosary with a rosary blessed by John Paul II: the explanation is that God healed this man as a sign that John Paul II is in heaven. Boom.
“Maybe the Face on Mars is really evidence for an extraterrestrial civilization, maybe NASA never went to the Moon, maybe Islam and not Christianity is the one true religion (you don’t know, you weren’t there), maybe the pagan gods and unicorns really do exists…”
Maybe M-theory describes nature at its most fundamental level. But what is M-theory. Oooh…we don’t know.
“ree ree, yet when they actually researched the power of prayer with people who had undergone major heart surgery, those prayed for did statistically worse than those who weren’t prayed for. All other research involving prayer, has had results, that at best (to those who consider it important anyway) been neutral, i.e. no effect.”
But how many of those people prayed the rosary with a set of rosary beads which were blessed by Pope John Paul II? Virtually none, I’m willing to bet.
Oh but you cannot just go through the motions, my dear friends, and expect God to submit himself to experimentation. You wouldn’t do evil things to your spouse in order to test if they really love you. Nor should you subject the power of God to statistical analysis and experiment. God will heal whom he chooses, when he chooses, according to his plan. My dear friends, we cannot know the mind of God, you know. (Notice how my responses are like those of string theorists? String theorists say things like this. “We do not know M-theory”…”we need new mathematics”…”But I believe M-theory is the correct description of quantum gravity.” “The multiverse must exist even though we don’t have any observation evidence in its favor.” I tell you, there’s more evidence that that guy who prayed the rosary was healed by God than there is that string theory is valid.)
What’s a poe blog?
Sean: “…I’m very sure that attaching the label “Brights” to people with naturalistic worldviews was one of the worst PR moves of all time.”
(lol) My thought as well. A lot of your peeps seem to hang there though…