8 ms·

Why do Americans claim to be more religious than they are?

15 points by luu 8y ago

Rainymood 8y ago
For those hardcore atheists that just can't fathom why someone would believe in Christianity/religion in general, let me ask you are you WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic)? If the answer is yes, I can highly recommend the book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. It didn't really change my opinion on religion but it did give me a different view and perspective into why some others do believe in it.
- hawkesnest 8y ago
  I don't know how "hardcore" I am. My lack of belief is due to lack of evidence. The quality of my life is pretty good (perhaps due to my WEIRDness) and, yes, that would probably prevent me from looking to something "else". That said, if the evidence were significantly more convincing, I'd change in a heartbeat.
  - linsistine 8y ago
    Evidence in what regard? Evidence to validate the proclaimed truth behind religion?
    - tw04 8y ago
      Evidence to prove the Bible isn't an entirely fictional work with very little basis in fact. Portions of which can be used to assist in developing a solid moral compass, but historically has been used to justify atrocities rather than elevate mankind.
      - linsistine 8y ago
        Well it's hard to convince anyone of the validity of religion because it is faith-based. I am a religious person because it gives me peace and strength, and in an odd way makes sense to ME. My personal experiences validate it, but of course this is not universal and hard to communicate to someone. But, the belief in a Higher Power, a God, a Creator of some sort, is rooted in using logic. That is something that I don't understand how someone can deny.
    - z3t4 8y ago
      A win in the startup lottery maybe. But I would probably claim it's due to my own skill of being at the right place of the right time.
    - lucozade 8y ago
      Probably for the existence of God. God's existence, if He were to have a reasonable fraction of the attributes ascribed to him, would be trivially provable to the most hardened atheist. The fact that that hasn't happened, with no clear reason why not, is quite tricky for a lot of sceptics to get passed.
  - trey-jones 8y ago
    Lack of evidence and willingness to change sounds more like "agnostic" than atheist to me. I'm not trying to split hairs - I am much more OK with declaring myself to be agnostic than athiest (I'm an American and southern to boot, Grandfather was a preacher). The best way I've heard it put is that Athiests believe there is no God. Agnostics believe that it is unknown and unknowable whether there is a god.
    - ykevinator 8y ago
      But defaulting to god being possible is itself religious. There is equal proof of the existence of 2 gods as there is one. And equal proof of 100. Throw god away and start with a clean slate, ask what happened and you will come up with big bang and evolution. No modern adult would start with a god. The fact that its an option is a legacy and one that I think pollutes agnostics' thinking.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      The counterpoint to this is Russell's teapot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot Yes, technically, I'm agnostic about a teapot orbiting Mars, or an invisible unicorn living on the Moon... but it's a reasonable statement to just say flatly "there's no such thing" until someone presents some pretty solid evidence that's incorrect. I've also heard folks make a distinction between "weak" and "strong" atheism; weak being "I don't believe there's a God, but I could be convinced with good enough evidence" and strong being "nothing would convince me of a God".
  - ykevinator 8y ago
    Exactly. Atheism is nothing more then accepting an evidence based belief system.
    - linsistine 8y ago
      What is your evidence?
- linsistine 8y ago
  What I can't fathom or understand is how someone can look at the universe and say that there was no Creator or Architect of some kind? If I showed you an incredibly complex software program and told you there was no developer or designer behind it, and that it came into existence randomly and for no reason, you would look at me like I'm crazy. Or for the artistically inclined, if I showed you the Sistine Chapel and told you there was no artist or creator behind it, you would say I'm insane. But for some reason people can look at something as remarkable as the universe and say there's no creator.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. But software and Sistine chapel having creators doesn’t provide any proof regarding origins of anything else. Some people choose to assume things that make themselves feel better, such as after lives and gods. Some people assume the opposite. Some people don’t assume anything at all. Either way, it’s nobody else’s business. Belief = assumption + ego, so I find assumption to be a better word to use when speaking about a political topic.
    - loopycode 8y ago
      The proof is in the pudding. The creation is the proof. Even Moon does not have life... Even though it has the right distance from the sun and what not...
      - renholder 8y ago
        >Even Moon does not have life... *That we know of.
      - skj 8y ago
        Not clear to me what you're trying to show by indicating the moon has no life.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        There's no single "right distance from the sun" - areas of Mars have temperature ranges acceptable for some Earth bacteria, Europa likely has liquid seas, etc., and Earth-style life isn't the only option - and the Moon is inhospitable in a variety of other ways. We also can't completely discount life on the Moon having briefly explored a couple acres of it, largely on foot.
- Scarblac 8y ago
  I'm western and educated. Rich is relative. But how can someone be Industrialised? Or Democratic?
- threatofrain 8y ago
  A lot of people can think of both perspectives because so many westerners come from Christian households or settings.
- ykevinator 8y ago
  The issue is how can religious people "choose" to believe something. Atheism is not a movement, it's a surrender to logic and reason. What's baffling is, how can people suppress reason because it feels good?
  - krapp 8y ago
    >What's baffling is, how can people suppress reason because it feels good? Humans are not primarily logical beings. Humans are primarily emotional beings for whom logic often serves as a basis to rationalize their emotions.
    - Rainymood 8y ago
      This is indeed one of the major themes covered in the book.
dfxm12 8y ago
FWIW, this article is from 2010.
Passthepeas 8y ago
While I am an atheist myself, I grew up going to a Unitarian church. They held food drives and other charity events, and was a social staple of our community. Religion can give a person's life structure, give them a social support network they might not have otherwise. I have met religious people that quite simply could not get out of bed without it, and as long as they don't become too dogmatic I see no issue with it. What many atheists seem to miss is this, god doesn't need to be real for religion to have massive benefits for an individual. I will never fault anyone for believing, nor will I fault anyone for playing up their level of belief to be able to participate. I will not overlook the excesses and corruption of large scale organized religions, but on a smaller scale it can be of great benefit for a community.
- haolez 8y ago
  Is a drunk man happier than others? That’s a simple, but deep question. I wonder if this topic is covered by mainstream philosophy.
  - ykevinator 8y ago
    Yes. A drunk man is happier. This is a trick religious people try to use by conflating something's truth with something's value.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  > I have met religious people that quite simply could not get out of bed without it, and as long as they don't become too dogmatic I see no issue with it. Are you not concerned that these people might one day come to the conclusion that their religion isn't real and be left with no reason to get out of bed?
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    That can happen to anybody.
    - daveFNbuck 8y ago
AndrewDucker 8y ago
It's very common, when one lives in a theocracy, to pretend to be religious. That way you don't get shunned by your fellow citizens, and have to deal with all sorts of awkward situations. The actual levels of religosity can drop a _lot_ before it becomes clear that darn-near everyone is just pretending. In 2011, membership the Church of Scotland dropped to the point where it was less popular than "No Religion". This got a lot of publicity - and meant that over the next two years the membership nearly _halved_, from 32% to 18%. Because once there's no social requirement to say "Oh yes, I believe in God", all of the people who hadn't been going to church anyway stop saying it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland#Position_in_Scottish_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland#Position_in...
tcrow 8y ago
What does it mean to be religious? Is it simply belief or belief and action? I would argue that you aren't really religious unless you actually live by the code of the religion. That would mean a very strict sense of how to navigate the world and your interactions with others and yourself. How many people do this? In my experience - not many, and I don't think this is unique to Americans. Perhaps I'm way off but it seems like the world in the majority is often only pretending to be religious.
- dfxm12 8y ago
  Some religious codes don't have an obligation to do good works or think philosophically about themselves or navigating the world. Simply believing - sola fide - defines religiousness for some religious codes, particularly among Protestant religions, which some 46.5% of Americans belong to [0]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_in_the_United_St...
  - tcrow 8y ago
    I understand this idea, but it doesn't really address the fundamental issue or what it REALLY MEANS to say you are religious. Can I really make a valid claim to be religious If my actions are not in accordance with the principals of my religion? Sure I can say I "believe", but then If I truly did, why would I not act it out in my life? I don't think the two are really separate concepts at the most fundamental analysis of it. Say one thing but do another just means you are a hypocrite.
    - dfxm12 8y ago
      Based on your line of thought here, I'm not sure you understand this idea as well as you claim to. You appear to be passionate about this though. I suggest you do some research into the key differences between Catholicism & Orthodox churches and many protestant churches like the Lutheran & Reformed Churches when it comes to sola fidelis vs "faith and works". I'll say this again: for many protestants (and thus many Americans), simply believing defines being religious.
notus 8y ago
Because American communities were built around religion with the church being the social congregation area. The average sentiment is that people don't really want to go to church but do so to maintain certain social relationships and keep up appearances. It is far more prevalent in smaller communities.

15 points by luu 8y ago

For those hardcore atheists that just can't fathom why someone would believe in Christianity/religion in general, let me ask you are you WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic)? If the answer is yes, I can highly recommend the book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. It didn't really change my opinion on religion but it did give me a different view and perspective into why some others do believe in it.

hawkesnest 8y ago
I don't know how "hardcore" I am. My lack of belief is due to lack of evidence. The quality of my life is pretty good (perhaps due to my WEIRDness) and, yes, that would probably prevent me from looking to something "else". That said, if the evidence were significantly more convincing, I'd change in a heartbeat.
- linsistine 8y ago
  Evidence in what regard? Evidence to validate the proclaimed truth behind religion?
  - tw04 8y ago
    Evidence to prove the Bible isn't an entirely fictional work with very little basis in fact. Portions of which can be used to assist in developing a solid moral compass, but historically has been used to justify atrocities rather than elevate mankind.
    - linsistine 8y ago
      Well it's hard to convince anyone of the validity of religion because it is faith-based. I am a religious person because it gives me peace and strength, and in an odd way makes sense to ME. My personal experiences validate it, but of course this is not universal and hard to communicate to someone. But, the belief in a Higher Power, a God, a Creator of some sort, is rooted in using logic. That is something that I don't understand how someone can deny.
  - z3t4 8y ago
    A win in the startup lottery maybe. But I would probably claim it's due to my own skill of being at the right place of the right time.
  - lucozade 8y ago
    Probably for the existence of God. God's existence, if He were to have a reasonable fraction of the attributes ascribed to him, would be trivially provable to the most hardened atheist. The fact that that hasn't happened, with no clear reason why not, is quite tricky for a lot of sceptics to get passed.
- trey-jones 8y ago
  Lack of evidence and willingness to change sounds more like "agnostic" than atheist to me. I'm not trying to split hairs - I am much more OK with declaring myself to be agnostic than athiest (I'm an American and southern to boot, Grandfather was a preacher). The best way I've heard it put is that Athiests believe there is no God. Agnostics believe that it is unknown and unknowable whether there is a god.
  - ykevinator 8y ago
    But defaulting to god being possible is itself religious. There is equal proof of the existence of 2 gods as there is one. And equal proof of 100. Throw god away and start with a clean slate, ask what happened and you will come up with big bang and evolution. No modern adult would start with a god. The fact that its an option is a legacy and one that I think pollutes agnostics' thinking.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    The counterpoint to this is Russell's teapot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot Yes, technically, I'm agnostic about a teapot orbiting Mars, or an invisible unicorn living on the Moon... but it's a reasonable statement to just say flatly "there's no such thing" until someone presents some pretty solid evidence that's incorrect. I've also heard folks make a distinction between "weak" and "strong" atheism; weak being "I don't believe there's a God, but I could be convinced with good enough evidence" and strong being "nothing would convince me of a God".
- ykevinator 8y ago
  Exactly. Atheism is nothing more then accepting an evidence based belief system.
  - linsistine 8y ago
    What is your evidence?
linsistine 8y ago
What I can't fathom or understand is how someone can look at the universe and say that there was no Creator or Architect of some kind? If I showed you an incredibly complex software program and told you there was no developer or designer behind it, and that it came into existence randomly and for no reason, you would look at me like I'm crazy. Or for the artistically inclined, if I showed you the Sistine Chapel and told you there was no artist or creator behind it, you would say I'm insane. But for some reason people can look at something as remarkable as the universe and say there's no creator.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. But software and Sistine chapel having creators doesn’t provide any proof regarding origins of anything else. Some people choose to assume things that make themselves feel better, such as after lives and gods. Some people assume the opposite. Some people don’t assume anything at all. Either way, it’s nobody else’s business. Belief = assumption + ego, so I find assumption to be a better word to use when speaking about a political topic.
  - loopycode 8y ago
    The proof is in the pudding. The creation is the proof. Even Moon does not have life... Even though it has the right distance from the sun and what not...
    - renholder 8y ago
      >Even Moon does not have life... *That we know of.
    - skj 8y ago
      Not clear to me what you're trying to show by indicating the moon has no life.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      There's no single "right distance from the sun" - areas of Mars have temperature ranges acceptable for some Earth bacteria, Europa likely has liquid seas, etc., and Earth-style life isn't the only option - and the Moon is inhospitable in a variety of other ways. We also can't completely discount life on the Moon having briefly explored a couple acres of it, largely on foot.
Scarblac 8y ago
I'm western and educated. Rich is relative. But how can someone be Industrialised? Or Democratic?
threatofrain 8y ago
A lot of people can think of both perspectives because so many westerners come from Christian households or settings.
ykevinator 8y ago
The issue is how can religious people "choose" to believe something. Atheism is not a movement, it's a surrender to logic and reason. What's baffling is, how can people suppress reason because it feels good?
- krapp 8y ago
  >What's baffling is, how can people suppress reason because it feels good? Humans are not primarily logical beings. Humans are primarily emotional beings for whom logic often serves as a basis to rationalize their emotions.
  - Rainymood 8y ago
    This is indeed one of the major themes covered in the book.

dfxm12 8y ago

FWIW, this article is from 2010.

Passthepeas 8y ago

While I am an atheist myself, I grew up going to a Unitarian church. They held food drives and other charity events, and was a social staple of our community. Religion can give a person's life structure, give them a social support network they might not have otherwise. I have met religious people that quite simply could not get out of bed without it, and as long as they don't become too dogmatic I see no issue with it. What many atheists seem to miss is this, god doesn't need to be real for religion to have massive benefits for an individual. I will never fault anyone for believing, nor will I fault anyone for playing up their level of belief to be able to participate. I will not overlook the excesses and corruption of large scale organized religions, but on a smaller scale it can be of great benefit for a community.

haolez 8y ago
Is a drunk man happier than others? That’s a simple, but deep question. I wonder if this topic is covered by mainstream philosophy.
- ykevinator 8y ago
  Yes. A drunk man is happier. This is a trick religious people try to use by conflating something's truth with something's value.
daveFNbuck 8y ago
> I have met religious people that quite simply could not get out of bed without it, and as long as they don't become too dogmatic I see no issue with it. Are you not concerned that these people might one day come to the conclusion that their religion isn't real and be left with no reason to get out of bed?
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  That can happen to anybody.
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago

AndrewDucker 8y ago

It's very common, when one lives in a theocracy, to pretend to be religious. That way you don't get shunned by your fellow citizens, and have to deal with all sorts of awkward situations. The actual levels of religosity can drop a _lot_ before it becomes clear that darn-near everyone is just pretending. In 2011, membership the Church of Scotland dropped to the point where it was less popular than "No Religion". This got a lot of publicity - and meant that over the next two years the membership nearly _halved_, from 32% to 18%. Because once there's no social requirement to say "Oh yes, I believe in God", all of the people who hadn't been going to church anyway stop saying it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland#Position_in_Scottish_society https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland#Position_in...

tcrow 8y ago

What does it mean to be religious? Is it simply belief or belief and action? I would argue that you aren't really religious unless you actually live by the code of the religion. That would mean a very strict sense of how to navigate the world and your interactions with others and yourself. How many people do this? In my experience - not many, and I don't think this is unique to Americans. Perhaps I'm way off but it seems like the world in the majority is often only pretending to be religious.

dfxm12 8y ago
Some religious codes don't have an obligation to do good works or think philosophically about themselves or navigating the world. Simply believing - sola fide - defines religiousness for some religious codes, particularly among Protestant religions, which some 46.5% of Americans belong to [0]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_in_the_United_St...
- tcrow 8y ago
  I understand this idea, but it doesn't really address the fundamental issue or what it REALLY MEANS to say you are religious. Can I really make a valid claim to be religious If my actions are not in accordance with the principals of my religion? Sure I can say I "believe", but then If I truly did, why would I not act it out in my life? I don't think the two are really separate concepts at the most fundamental analysis of it. Say one thing but do another just means you are a hypocrite.
  - dfxm12 8y ago
    Based on your line of thought here, I'm not sure you understand this idea as well as you claim to. You appear to be passionate about this though. I suggest you do some research into the key differences between Catholicism & Orthodox churches and many protestant churches like the Lutheran & Reformed Churches when it comes to sola fidelis vs "faith and works". I'll say this again: for many protestants (and thus many Americans), simply believing defines being religious.

notus 8y ago

Because American communities were built around religion with the church being the social congregation area. The average sentiment is that people don't really want to go to church but do so to maintain certain social relationships and keep up appearances. It is far more prevalent in smaller communities.