3 ms·

There are so many implied claims in what you say, it is difficult to give a response. We would almost certainly be talking past each other. > I think I see thi

There are so many implied claims in what you say, it is difficult to give a response. We would almost certainly be talking past each other. > I think I see this decline as a correction. It's not actually normal to have so many people finding religion important to their lives in a ... Why use that as your normative base? Why not say that everything after, say, Descartes or Jesus or the printing press is abnormal level of religion, and that we are in a lull of divinity? Why do you think anything about the religiosity of anyone in the last 1-30 centuries is normal? > in a large, connected ... but since the Internet has connected us all ... Are we in a large, connected society? Has the internet really done as you say?

dangus 7y ago
The normative base I’m talking about is the religious importance levels in various countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_coun... The United States is one of the most religious countries for being as wealthy and developed as it is. Many of the similarly developed nations that remain religious are the oil theocracies. As I mentioned, the Internet has allowed people to read opinions beyond their own filtered literature. A religious school or household won’t buy books that question religion. But an entire generation (the millennials shown in the article) grew up with Internet connections that largely took them beyond those filters. I know that part is speculation on my end, but eliminating the Internet’s role in inter-connectivity as a possibility is an odd hypothesis. I have friends in Japan in shared interest groups for Japanese pop stars, how would that have happened before the Internet? Writing letters?