8 ms·

More Young People Are Moving Away From Religion, But Why?

37 points by codegeek 14y ago

gfodor 14y ago
Because most religious myths are pretty absurd and it's become less and less difficult to admit it without persecution. One of Dawkins' theses is that many Christians just identify as such because "Christian" has historically meant "good" or "normal" in many communities. In these communities to introduce yourself as a Christian gets a slight nod and the conversation moves on but saying you are an atheist (or otherwise) makes it "a thing." I remember growing up Catholic and hearing news that some friends admitted to being atheists. This had the same feel as hearing friends had admitted to being thieves, liars, or cheats. Lots of whispering, rumors, and altogether reprehensible behavior for such a stupid thing. It had less to do with disagreements about true, deep belief in an all powerful deity and more about saying "we are not part of the team" and being tarnished by admitting such.
- EugeneOZ 14y ago
  "Love each other" is main rule of the Christianity and it's not a myth, definitely. Rites are absurd, love is not.
  - dorkrawk 14y ago
    But I think more people are starting to incorporate the idea of love without the baggage that might come with a religion.
  - jonsterling 14y ago
    “Love each other” is almost certainly not the main idea of Christianity (rule? perhaps). The main idea of Christianity is that you are inherently in a state of sinning, and that Christ has sacrificed himself to atone for your sins: if you accept Him, you will be forgiven your sins and accepted into the Heavenly Kingdom. If you do not believe in (or know of) Him, you will burn for eternity in the pit of sulfur. That's the main idea of Christianity.
    - danilocampos 14y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket
    - EugeneOZ 14y ago
      I think there is 2 things: 1) really great book with really great ideas about love, forgiveness and dominating of wisdom (new Testament); 2) greedy clergy which are trying to "explain" that book in dimension they want, to get frightened people and control them, like old shamans. Not all of them are greedy, but still it's my opinion.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - tokipin 14y ago
    that's also the main rule of like... common sense -.-
  - gfodor 14y ago
    Myths are stories, events, and characters people believe in. "Love each other" is not any of these things. The myths I'm referring to are the ones involving virgin births, resurrections, and hilariously human-like deities who rule over mankind like invisible sky wizards.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
thorum 14y ago
I'm a bit sad that none of these quotes include, "Because there's no evidence." I wonder if this is because none of the people interviewed said it, or because it didn't make a good quote.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  I suppose it's only natural. Us religious folk have had thousands of years of practice with people being religious for the wrong reasons. Now you atheists finally get a chance to experience people being atheists for the wrong reasons.
  - theevocater 14y ago
    What? Everyone starts out an atheist. There can't be a wrong reason to be an atheist because its the default setting on the human.
    - fusiongyro 14y ago
      Interesting. Did you know that's precisely the same reasoning Islam has for calling everyone else an infidel?
    - thorum 14y ago
      Why does atheism being the default setting on a human mean there can't be a wrong reason to be an atheist? That doesn't follow at all.
      - fusiongyro 14y ago
        I also doubt it's true. Most kids seem perfectly willing animists to me. Not ascribing supernatural causes to things is learned, not built in.
  - danilocampos 14y ago
    That's just the thing, though. Atheism isn't a religion. There is no "wrong reason" to be an atheist. If a guy on the street concludes there is no god, whether he got there by reading a textbook or personal whimsy has no bearing on my own absence of belief. It doesn't matter.
plg 14y ago
Young people today have more access to information (via the internet) than ever before. Live in isolation you can be brainwashed to believe almost anything. Live in a connected world where you can inform yourself, you make up your own mind, typically (hopefully) based on reason and logic.
EliRivers 14y ago
Religion is a social phenomenon. It is the codified, formalised expression of a given group's customs and rules (which is why writing it down and letting people outside a narrow priesthood have access to it is generally a disaster - it makes it very hard for the religion to change as the culture does, because there's always someone ready to take the words seriously). Successful religions tend to be those with a significant social aspect. Even churches that are nominally the same religion often have deep divides across the social groups. With the opportunities young people have now to explore beyond their immediate group, both physically and mentally, it's hardly surprising that religion won't take.
alwaysinshade 14y ago
Start with Yusaf's story regarding Abraham - it would be difficult for an educated, critical-minded person to believe or respect the narrative when it doesn't even have a good moral to back it up. Many stories from the various holy books fail to show the actions of an all seeing, all knowing creator – by today’s standards it would come across as a creepy psychopath with magical powers. Combine education with technological advancement, better medicine, better understanding of the mind, and the simple notion that you don't require a supernatural sky-policeman to be a loving, caring, empathetic individual leaves religion looking a bit impractical.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- p3d4nt 14y ago
  No, because they said they would stop their heart not cause a myocardial infarction (which led to eventually stopping the heart). Even if it could be proven that what they had said aggravated a pre-existing condition by some means thereby causing heart tissue death there would not be grounds for manslaughter. Aged billionaire's wives can rest assured.
lbolognini 14y ago
Religion is man-made and you can see it in many ways. There are two kind of things in this world: the one you know and the one you don't. Religion tries to give an answer to the one you don't but it's pure speculation. It's funny how now we look down to polytheist religions as something "barbaric" when in fact there's no difference between these beliefs and the currently popular ones. With regards to Christianity then there's just to much distance between the core beliefs and the huge set of things built on top of them by the Catholic Church, which incidentally, doesn't even practice what they preach. Bertrand Russell very well put that to be a Christian you have to at least believe that Jesus Christ was the best of men when history gives us plenty of examples of people that were without doubt proven to exist and that were just as good, if not better than Jesus, such as Socrates or Gandhi.
taproot 14y ago
I watched a Jodi Beggs Ted Talk this morning "Context is King" she discussed how the human mind will attempt to alter its perception of its environment until things make sense. This altering is far less possible the more we make sense of the world and universe in which we live. My guess is that now we've answered and explained scientifically much more of those questions which religion generally sought to explain, we're much less susceptible to fairy tales.
fjorder 14y ago
It bothers me when people say that science conflicts with religion. It certainly conflicts with specific religious dogmas, such as young-earth creationism, but the frontiers of science fall well short of proving or disproving the existence of any possible deity. If you go strictly by evidence, agnosticism is a tenable position, but both theism and atheism require leaps of faith beyond scientific fact. As such, atheists who claim science is on their side bother me almost as much as young-earth creationists.
- jonsterling 14y ago
  I think it's less the case that science conflicts with religion (since as science grows, religion can continue to shrink; there's no clear point at which we will say, “Welp, looks like the religion is all gone now”), but rather that maintaining a scientific worldview conflicts with religion. This worldview is what allows us to temporarily reject, for instance, premises which are brought up in poor faith, or premises for which there is no clear need. For instance, if in the course of a lie, a lier accidentally says something true, we still reserve our credence for when someone else more likely to be telling the truth says so. Or, if you have a mathematical theory which is not disproved by anything, we wait until it appears to be implied by some other believed-in theory before accepting it a “fact”. If a theory does not appear to have arisen as a result of other true things, than it may still be true, but we don't need to accept it as such until it seems necessary. So: The pragmatic worldview necessitated for getting anything done in science tends to lead to atheism.
  - beloch 14y ago
    In science: -In science, the ideal is that credibility is no substitute for data and logic. That's not always true in practice, especially when the media gets involved. -Premises for which there are no clear need are pursued ardently. "Need" is often rather late to the party, and it frequently never shows up at all. -Theories always remain theories, but become "accepted" once enough tests that could disprove them fail to do so. Even accepted theories are continually tested as new tests are developed. -Belief is irrelevant. -If a theory reduces down to another theory, it isn't really a new theory at all. I'm not sure if your conclusion has anything to do with your arguments either. For what its worth, I've always felt that, for those of us in scientific fields, what is known is miniscule compared to what is unknown, and we're free to believe whatever the heck we want about the unknown so long as we're willing to react logically when some beloved part of our unknown universe becomes known to conflict with what we believe. If you're an agoraphobe, faith can fill in the vast empty spaces where fact and logic have not yet taken us. It's those who put faith first that we must beware of! They often speak of science in similar language as you, as if it were merely another religion with a different set of beliefs, and therefore what you believe is merely a difference of opinion!
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
drucken 14y ago
Education.

37 points by codegeek 14y ago

Because most religious myths are pretty absurd and it's become less and less difficult to admit it without persecution. One of Dawkins' theses is that many Christians just identify as such because "Christian" has historically meant "good" or "normal" in many communities. In these communities to introduce yourself as a Christian gets a slight nod and the conversation moves on but saying you are an atheist (or otherwise) makes it "a thing." I remember growing up Catholic and hearing news that some friends admitted to being atheists. This had the same feel as hearing friends had admitted to being thieves, liars, or cheats. Lots of whispering, rumors, and altogether reprehensible behavior for such a stupid thing. It had less to do with disagreements about true, deep belief in an all powerful deity and more about saying "we are not part of the team" and being tarnished by admitting such.

EugeneOZ 14y ago
"Love each other" is main rule of the Christianity and it's not a myth, definitely. Rites are absurd, love is not.
- dorkrawk 14y ago
  But I think more people are starting to incorporate the idea of love without the baggage that might come with a religion.
- jonsterling 14y ago
  “Love each other” is almost certainly not the main idea of Christianity (rule? perhaps). The main idea of Christianity is that you are inherently in a state of sinning, and that Christ has sacrificed himself to atone for your sins: if you accept Him, you will be forgiven your sins and accepted into the Heavenly Kingdom. If you do not believe in (or know of) Him, you will burn for eternity in the pit of sulfur. That's the main idea of Christianity.
  - danilocampos 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket
  - EugeneOZ 14y ago
    I think there is 2 things: 1) really great book with really great ideas about love, forgiveness and dominating of wisdom (new Testament); 2) greedy clergy which are trying to "explain" that book in dimension they want, to get frightened people and control them, like old shamans. Not all of them are greedy, but still it's my opinion.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- tokipin 14y ago
  that's also the main rule of like... common sense -.-
- gfodor 14y ago
  Myths are stories, events, and characters people believe in. "Love each other" is not any of these things. The myths I'm referring to are the ones involving virgin births, resurrections, and hilariously human-like deities who rule over mankind like invisible sky wizards.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

thorum 14y ago

I'm a bit sad that none of these quotes include, "Because there's no evidence." I wonder if this is because none of the people interviewed said it, or because it didn't make a good quote.

fusiongyro 14y ago
I suppose it's only natural. Us religious folk have had thousands of years of practice with people being religious for the wrong reasons. Now you atheists finally get a chance to experience people being atheists for the wrong reasons.
- theevocater 14y ago
  What? Everyone starts out an atheist. There can't be a wrong reason to be an atheist because its the default setting on the human.
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    Interesting. Did you know that's precisely the same reasoning Islam has for calling everyone else an infidel?
  - thorum 14y ago
    Why does atheism being the default setting on a human mean there can't be a wrong reason to be an atheist? That doesn't follow at all.
    - fusiongyro 14y ago
      I also doubt it's true. Most kids seem perfectly willing animists to me. Not ascribing supernatural causes to things is learned, not built in.
- danilocampos 14y ago
  That's just the thing, though. Atheism isn't a religion. There is no "wrong reason" to be an atheist. If a guy on the street concludes there is no god, whether he got there by reading a textbook or personal whimsy has no bearing on my own absence of belief. It doesn't matter.

plg 14y ago

Young people today have more access to information (via the internet) than ever before. Live in isolation you can be brainwashed to believe almost anything. Live in a connected world where you can inform yourself, you make up your own mind, typically (hopefully) based on reason and logic.

EliRivers 14y ago

Religion is a social phenomenon. It is the codified, formalised expression of a given group's customs and rules (which is why writing it down and letting people outside a narrow priesthood have access to it is generally a disaster - it makes it very hard for the religion to change as the culture does, because there's always someone ready to take the words seriously). Successful religions tend to be those with a significant social aspect. Even churches that are nominally the same religion often have deep divides across the social groups. With the opportunities young people have now to explore beyond their immediate group, both physically and mentally, it's hardly surprising that religion won't take.

alwaysinshade 14y ago

Start with Yusaf's story regarding Abraham - it would be difficult for an educated, critical-minded person to believe or respect the narrative when it doesn't even have a good moral to back it up. Many stories from the various holy books fail to show the actions of an all seeing, all knowing creator – by today’s standards it would come across as a creepy psychopath with magical powers. Combine education with technological advancement, better medicine, better understanding of the mind, and the simple notion that you don't require a supernatural sky-policeman to be a loving, caring, empathetic individual leaves religion looking a bit impractical.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

p3d4nt 14y ago
No, because they said they would stop their heart not cause a myocardial infarction (which led to eventually stopping the heart). Even if it could be proven that what they had said aggravated a pre-existing condition by some means thereby causing heart tissue death there would not be grounds for manslaughter. Aged billionaire's wives can rest assured.

lbolognini 14y ago

Religion is man-made and you can see it in many ways. There are two kind of things in this world: the one you know and the one you don't. Religion tries to give an answer to the one you don't but it's pure speculation. It's funny how now we look down to polytheist religions as something "barbaric" when in fact there's no difference between these beliefs and the currently popular ones. With regards to Christianity then there's just to much distance between the core beliefs and the huge set of things built on top of them by the Catholic Church, which incidentally, doesn't even practice what they preach. Bertrand Russell very well put that to be a Christian you have to at least believe that Jesus Christ was the best of men when history gives us plenty of examples of people that were without doubt proven to exist and that were just as good, if not better than Jesus, such as Socrates or Gandhi.

taproot 14y ago

I watched a Jodi Beggs Ted Talk this morning "Context is King" she discussed how the human mind will attempt to alter its perception of its environment until things make sense. This altering is far less possible the more we make sense of the world and universe in which we live. My guess is that now we've answered and explained scientifically much more of those questions which religion generally sought to explain, we're much less susceptible to fairy tales.

fjorder 14y ago

It bothers me when people say that science conflicts with religion. It certainly conflicts with specific religious dogmas, such as young-earth creationism, but the frontiers of science fall well short of proving or disproving the existence of any possible deity. If you go strictly by evidence, agnosticism is a tenable position, but both theism and atheism require leaps of faith beyond scientific fact. As such, atheists who claim science is on their side bother me almost as much as young-earth creationists.

jonsterling 14y ago
I think it's less the case that science conflicts with religion (since as science grows, religion can continue to shrink; there's no clear point at which we will say, “Welp, looks like the religion is all gone now”), but rather that maintaining a scientific worldview conflicts with religion. This worldview is what allows us to temporarily reject, for instance, premises which are brought up in poor faith, or premises for which there is no clear need. For instance, if in the course of a lie, a lier accidentally says something true, we still reserve our credence for when someone else more likely to be telling the truth says so. Or, if you have a mathematical theory which is not disproved by anything, we wait until it appears to be implied by some other believed-in theory before accepting it a “fact”. If a theory does not appear to have arisen as a result of other true things, than it may still be true, but we don't need to accept it as such until it seems necessary. So: The pragmatic worldview necessitated for getting anything done in science tends to lead to atheism.
- beloch 14y ago
  In science: -In science, the ideal is that credibility is no substitute for data and logic. That's not always true in practice, especially when the media gets involved. -Premises for which there are no clear need are pursued ardently. "Need" is often rather late to the party, and it frequently never shows up at all. -Theories always remain theories, but become "accepted" once enough tests that could disprove them fail to do so. Even accepted theories are continually tested as new tests are developed. -Belief is irrelevant. -If a theory reduces down to another theory, it isn't really a new theory at all. I'm not sure if your conclusion has anything to do with your arguments either. For what its worth, I've always felt that, for those of us in scientific fields, what is known is miniscule compared to what is unknown, and we're free to believe whatever the heck we want about the unknown so long as we're willing to react logically when some beloved part of our unknown universe becomes known to conflict with what we believe. If you're an agoraphobe, faith can fill in the vast empty spaces where fact and logic have not yet taken us. It's those who put faith first that we must beware of! They often speak of science in similar language as you, as if it were merely another religion with a different set of beliefs, and therefore what you believe is merely a difference of opinion!

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

drucken 14y ago

Education.