• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Study: World Is Turning More Religious; Atheism Declining

German guy said:
I hope that means there is a decrease of religious justifications for violence and zealotry too ... because if that's the case, I'd say it's good news.

We could need more people who are inspired by religion to become better people. But we don't need more people attacking others who hold different beliefs.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, your hope seems to be the exact opposite of what's really happening. The increasing religious populations are among the poor, desperate, and uneducated, and they are the groups most prone to violence. Religious violence is an everyday occurrence in places like Africa and India, where those poor religious populations are most concentrated. Religiously motivated violence against women, including mutilation, oppression, rape, and domestic violence, are the norm, rather than the exception.

Mind you, the OP's study seems to contradict pretty much every other study on the subject, so it's probably nonsense, but even if it is true, it doesn't bode well. Populations of ignorant poor religious people are growing, while educated non-religious wealthier people are on the decline. That's a terrible future for this world, but I don't think it's actually happening. As I said, every other study on the subject reveals the opposite trend.
 
WCH said:
So less Commies in the world equals less Atheists ...who woulda thunk?
Click to expand...

Less states persecuting christianity, it's got nothing to do with economic policy.
 
tosca1 said:
Christianity is growing rapidly in Turkey (as an example). We have a missionary from there who'd explained about the rapid growth.

No wonder the Turkish Environment and Urbanism Minister had put his own spin on it! :lol:

RELIGION - Christianity no longer a religion, says Turkish minister


I have no problem with the word, culture! In fact, I like it better!

Hallelujah!
Click to expand...

I would see that as a problem, christianity IS a religion, and when it becomes a culture it becomes exclusive (not cross cultural) and ignores it's whole point.

Christianity isn't a culture, it's faith in Christ.
 
jmotivator said:
Possibly, but since the explanation for the findings is fairly straight forward -- 1.3 billion forced atheists suddenly having a choice in the last 30 years would naturally lead to a rise in religious beliefs world wide -- I find the attempt to deny common sense on the grounds of "bias" is really the more insidious form of bias at play here.
Click to expand...

See, that's the interesting thing. Usually in freer societies, you'd have a decrease in faith, due to a lack of need. But the socialist-left had such a unique - I mean, despite individual worship often being permitted, religion as a public institution was eviscerated - role. This was even true in Spain, during (arguably) one of the most free societies we've ever had.

So I'd actually position that it's more complex than you claim. While religious institutions may have reformed, the desperate individualism and adoption of faith that Zizek outlined in Stalinist regimes... has become a bit more unnecessary.
 
Org said:
See, that's the interesting thing. Usually in freer societies, you'd have a decrease in faith, due to a lack of need. But the socialist-left had such a unique - I mean, despite individual worship often being permitted, religion as a public institution was eviscerated - role. This was even true in Spain, during (arguably) one of the most free societies we've ever had.

So I'd actually position that it's more complex than you claim. While religious institutions may have reformed, the desperate individualism and adoption of faith that Zizek outlined in Stalinist regimes... has become a bit more unnecessary.
Click to expand...



In a state where religion is forbidden those who are religious are less likely to answer honestly to a survey that could get them imprisoned. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the changes in the Chinese government towards religion more people were honest about their beliefs than they were before.

The opposite would likely play out in Iran, for example, if the theocracy fell. Many who aren't believers don't feel free to express their opinions openly, and you would likely see more admit to being atheists at heart if they didn't fear repression... and a poll taken before and after would show a decrease in religion in Iran even though no actual decline happened.

With regard to the drop in religiosity in freer countries, I would say that is also to be expected, but probably not for the reasons you believe. At the least, having cycled from religious to atheist and back again, my atheism was far from the victory of intellectualism, even though I liked to pretend it was at the time.

From my experience it is not a lack of need that leads to a decline in religiosity. Many people are just not so quick to take on personal self-enforced limitations when they are strictly voluntary. Religion in society is a limiting influence, at least from outside observation, and the pressure to dump religion in favor of guiltless debauchery is strong. Personally my climb back out of the dead fall of atheism was back when I was a progressive social worker. I made the unnerving (at the time) realization that the one thing that the vast majority of my clients had in common was a lack of faith. It seemed to be a prerequisite for a life of intense drug abuse and self destructive behavior. The only reliable life line that I saw pulling people out of that pit was faith and religious organizations.

Granted, that is only anecdotal evidence of my own life experience, but it was profound to me that the limitations I saw in leading a life in faith were in fact, even in the absence of a God, the wisdom of thousands of years of humanity for how to live a good and happy life. So, I became religious years before my belief in God returned.
 
rathi said:
People in China and Russia weren't really atheists. They simply kept their mouth shut and towed the party line because they feared persecution. What has changed in the current studies is that they are willing to admit their true beliefs. Its definitely good news for human rights and ability of people to worship as they choose, but its not really an increase on the number of faithful.
Click to expand...

:raises eyebrow: it's your contention that a similar portion of the Chinese mainland populace in (for example) 1975 was Christian?
 
WCH said:
It definitely appeals to the senses and needs of man.
Click to expand...

As G.K. Chesterton so aptly put it, "we are taller, when we bow".
 
cpwill said:
Actually that is precisely what is happening. Violence for all reasons - including religiously motivated conflict - is down. Way, way down.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is. Neither GG nor I were commenting on the general trends of violence. I know violence is going down. It has been for decades. GG and I are talking about the proportion of violence that is religiously motivated, and whether religious inspiration seems to be causing better or worse behavior compared with secular. The trend is towards worse.
 
cpwill said:
:raises eyebrow: it's your contention that a similar portion of the Chinese mainland populace in (for example) 1975 was Christian?
Click to expand...

No, I am talking about religion in general, not specifically any sect like Christianity.
 
How do we not know that evolving was not part of God's plan? I have no problem believing in that.
 
Paschendale said:
I'm not sure what your point is. Neither GG nor I were commenting on the general trends of violence. I know violence is going down. It has been for decades. GG and I are talking about the proportion of violence that is religiously motivated, and whether religious inspiration seems to be causing better or worse behavior compared with secular. The trend is towards worse.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I don't really know what else to say except that that is mathematically incorrect. Global religious crush zones and explicit religious conflicts are trending towards the less violent, not the more violent. What has changed is that as our tolerance of religiously-motivated violence has ebbed and its' incidence decreased, the attention we pay towards occurrences has increased.

Knowledge=power said:
Have you looked at Egypt lately?
Click to expand...

Yup.

rathi said:
No, I am talking about religion in general, not specifically any sect like Christianity.
Click to expand...

Then can you source your assertion that China was equally as religious in the 1970s as now, or is that just an assumption?
 
SayMyName said:
How do we not know that evolving was not part of God's plan? I have no problem believing in that.
Click to expand...

you are in good company.

 
cpwill said:
you are in good company.
Click to expand...
If all mechanisms within a process are explained, is it not illogical to add a superfluous causal variable that has no supporting evidence into the process?

For example: If we know that fire is the result of energy causing the oxidization of carbon which releases CO2, H2O and more energy, why would it make any sense for a person to then say that 'fire spirits' actually caused the reaction? We know the entire process and its mechanisms from start to finish. Why shove an unsupported factor (these "fire spirits") into the equation?
 
brothern said:
If all mechanisms within a process are explained, is it not illogical to add a superfluous causal variable that has no supporting evidence into the process?

For example: If we know that fire is the result of energy causing the oxidization of carbon which releases CO2, H2O and more energy, why would it make any sense for a person to then say that 'fire spirits' actually caused the reaction? We know the entire process and its mechanisms from start to finish. Why shove an unsupported factor (these "fire spirits") into the equation?
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaking claim for a positive ongoing input requirement for demonstration that there is no reason to suppose an invalidation of first cause. Explicitly the argument is that the natural processes were established by God to funciton as they do. Your argument above would be akin to claiming that the fact that internal combustion engines work therefore obviates the need for them to be designed; a missing of the forest for the trees.
 
RGacky3 said:
That link doesn't show anything, it's a book written by a philosopher about human nature, it isn't statistics or anything like that.
Click to expand...

actually I am currently reading that very book, and it is extremely statistic-heavy, almost to the point of mind-dulling dives into the mathematics.
 
cpwill said:
:raises eyebrow: it's your contention that a similar portion of the Chinese mainland populace in (for example) 1975 was Christian?
Click to expand...

Mainland China was not Christian

But it does not exclude the potential that they were Buddist or Taoist (or other religion)
 
cpwill said:
Then can you source your assertion that China was equally as religious in the 1970s as now, or is that just an assumption?
Click to expand...

That would require A) That the Chinese government conducted a nationwide religious poll in the middle of the cultural revolution. B) That the government wouldn't tamper with the data C) People would answer honestly in a time when the wrong opinion literally got you killed. There is simply no useful data during that time. Frankly, I'm not sure why you are so skeptical of my claims. You'd think a good old fashion cold warrior like yourself wouldn't have a problem admitting that communist governments could better repress people actions through fear than actually change their beliefs.
 
rathi said:
That would require A) That the Chinese government conducted a nationwide religious poll in the middle of the cultural revolution. B) That the government wouldn't tamper with the data C) People would answer honestly in a time when the wrong opinion literally got you killed. There is simply no useful data during that time. Frankly, I'm not sure why you are so skeptical of my claims. You'd think a good old fashion cold warrior like yourself wouldn't have a problem admitting that communist governments could better repress people actions through fear than actually change their beliefs.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem acknowledging that in the slightest. I simply also look with a skewed eye at the claim that therefore people were religious in equal quantities (as a portion), given that we are seeing rapid expansion of particular faiths, most typically among those who were previously atheist in origin.


Globally I'd suspect that the study inflates its' claims. But in China, I think, they have a case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom