Trend in America: Atheism

If atheists, agnostics and secularists could polish their image they might prove powerful, and increasingly so. If the number of people declaring “no religion” can double over the ten years [now 30 million compared to 51 million Catholics]…who know how many more there are now or might be in years to come. Polls have shown that eight years of Mr Bush’s mix of piety, divisiveness and incompetence have pushed young people towards the secular in higher numbers than before.

Religion is on the slide in the US. If you believe Bill O’Reilly, the decline of believers in America is encompassed in a culture war. He is right, there is a culture war, and the forces of convention are getting clobbered.

I think O’Reilly sees this war as intrinsically political. While that may be the case, it’s the effect, not the cause. Our society society has fundamentally changed in the past 30 years. Religion, and why people are moving away from it, is the perfect example of why this is the case.

The primacy of science, for example, has dealt an irrevocable blow to religion. Religious people deny this, but if you are raised in a society that sees science as the standard bearer for all things we know, religion is simply not a believable concept considering there is absolutely zero proof of its existence. We live in a society where knowing things to be true in contingent on proof. We know there is gravity because we can see it in action, it’s a tangible, proven law of physics. Religion simply does not meet this threshold in any respect.

Looking at what’s changed since, say, 1950, I think we see broad traditions shattered across the board. For example, it’s now acceptable for gay persons to be openly gay in our society. If this is possible, I argue that more basic conventions can be broken. Breaking from the religion you were raised to be a follower of included.

Most devastating is the reality that religion has broken with the collective understandings of its followers. Abortion, war, crime & punishment, women, homosexuality, and pre-marital relations: if religion was a ship and its followers its crew, there has been a mutiny. Many self-described followers do not actually follow church convention politically anymore. In the case of women, religion has actually followed its followers. In other instances, the church is still centuries behind its followers. Briefly, the term ‘followers’ no longer seems appropriate.

More troubling issues are involved as well. Priest sex scandals and abuse of children, now parents, in religious schools when they were growing-up are widespread. Both project a damaging image of pious duplicity.

Religion is dying a slow death in America. Of course, in the most predictable of places, it lives on in intense fashion. For the most part though, it does and will linger on as a tradition. The younger generations may very well induce the collapse of religion as a pillar in American society. It has already begun.

And why can’t Science be a religion? Already the more advanced and complicated aspects of any given science are known by fewer and fewer men who have spent years in study. Already we are forced to accept the word of a specialist on WHY something will fall from our hand if we drop it.
I believe the difference is that newer religions force us to QUESTION what we know, while the more orthodox ones force FAITH.
It is absurd to believe that some deity put dinosaur fossils on this planet to “test our faith.” But it is even more absurd, to this author at least, to exist without belief.
That organized religion as we know it is fading in America is to this author a good thing, but we must not allow ourselves to discard morals, belief or even faith itself. We must discard the blind and unquestioning morals, beliefs and faith.
P.S. If ONE man in the guise of an American president can help shatter the faith of millions, either the faith is weak, or he is the anti-Christ and the rapture is upon is. Haven’t seen any horsemen or raining brimstone… where does that leave Christianity.

Brian,
Very interesting take. You covered a lot of ground.

Sadly, I agree that organized religion today has a hard go of it. Still, I have always said that if religion didn’t exist, we’d invent one. Further it would have nearly all the same premisses except those which salute the religious bureaucracy. That is how a society avoids various troubles.

Your point about the changes and religion keeping up with society speaks to the baby boomer’s decision that “if it feels good, do it.”. There is a cliché that goes something like - “Morality is doing the right thing when nobody is looking”. That presents a problem when a deity is always watching.

I love your comment: “The primacy of science, for example, has dealt an irrevocable blow to religion. Religious people deny this, but if you are raised in a society that sees science as the standard bearer for all things we know, religion is simply not a believable concept considering there is absolutely zero proof of its existence.”
Makes me wonder if we don’t just have a marketing problem. After all the public is quite happy to accept consensus as a fact of science. (sorry for the sarcasm)

And Gregorian asks: “And why can’t Science be a religion? “
Simple. Separation of church and state. I once hoped to use that same issue for the opposite result when I tried to declare Political Correctness to be a religion.

More seriously, the real fight coming for religion is when science begins to enable immortality.

“Religion is dying a slow death in America.” That would be an interesting observation to anyone looking at the demographics of the United States. 85% of the country professes belief in a religion.

This would be akin to you saying “Hetrosexuality is dying a slow death in America,” since there are invariably more gay people now than 100 years ago. It just isn’t true. What is true, of both atheism and homosexuality, is that they are becoming more accepted, which says more good things about our culture than bad things of religion.

I’m really surprised that you would jump to such a sensationalist conclusion about the state of America just because atheism has become more widely publicized (with the help of Richard Dawkins, et al) and accepted. In some senses it has almost become fashionable and trendy to bash religion (as you have taken to) because of how political some of its leaders have wrongly been in the past quarter century. Fortunately, 25 years of divisive political/religious behavior will not undo 2000 years of belief.

“Religion is dying a slow death in America.” That would be an interesting observation to anyone looking at the demographics of the United States. 85% of the country professes belief in a religion.

That would be a nice fact to fall back on if it were fortified. Again, it’s not that people are waking up atheist, it’s the trend away from religion on many fronts: political and social most conspicuously. 87.8% percent of Italians describe themselves as Roman Catholic, although only about 1/3 say they are active followers. This goes to show that there is a difference in religious belief and religious influence.

Sure people may ‘believe’ in religion. But, what does that mean when the Church condemns abortion and its followers totally disregard the Church’s once strong influence?

You shouldn’t take this realistic appraisal of the status quo of faith in America as ‘bashing.’ I don’t believe I said anything that is not substantiated by fact and/or very reasonable deductions.

“More troubling issues are involved as well. Priest sex scandals and abuse of children, now parents, in religious schools when they were growing-up are widespread. Both project a damaging image of pious duplicity.”

Not only would the word “widespread” be a wildly inaccurate description of a small minority of instances (granted “more widespread” than previously thought), but some would say that type of mischaracterization would qualify as bashing. Also, it might not be bashing, but “pious duplicity” isn’t a compliment I often go looking for.

As far as church’s influence, you bring up the Church (Roman Catholic), which represents only 25% of all believers in the United States, where they have arguably never had the influence you talk about existing in Europe.
I would accept the idea that numbers of active church goers dropping significantly would be something of note, but to this point you have only provided statistics from Italy.

Not only would the word “widespread” be a wildly inaccurate description of a small minority of instances (granted “more widespread” than previously thought), but some would say that type of mischaracterization would qualify as bashing.

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country:

# 1 Australia

* 1.1 Archdiocese of Sydney
* 1.2 Archdiocese of Melbourne
* 1.3 Archdiocese of Brisbane
* 1.4 Archdiocese of Perth

# 2 Austria

* 2.1 Archdiocese of Vienna

# 3 Belgium

* 3.1 Diocese of Bruges

# 4 Brazil
# 5 Britain

* 5.1 Diocese of Arundel and Brighton

# 6 Canada

* 6.1 Archdiocese of St. John’s

# 7 Croatia

* 7.1 Archdiocese of Zagreb
* 7.2 Archdiocese of Rijeka

# 8 Czech Republic

* 8.1 Archdiocese of Olomouc

# 9 France

* 9.1 Archdiocese of Paris
* 9.2 Archdiocese of Besançon

# 10 Ireland

* 10.1 Archdiocese of Dublin
* 10.2 Diocese of Ferns
* 10.3 Archdiocese of Tuam

# 11 Italy
# 12 Mexico

* 12.1 Archdiocese of Mexico City

# 13 The Netherlands

* 13.1 Diocese of Den Bosch
* 13.2 Diocese of Roermond
* 13.3 Diocese of Rotterdam

# 14 Philippines
# 15 Poland

* 15.1 Archdiocese of Poznań
* 15.2 Diocese of Plock

# 16 Slovenia

* 16.1 Archdiocese of Ljubljana

# 17 United States

* 17.1 Archdiocese of Anchorage
* 17.2 Archdiocese of Boston
* 17.3 Diocese of Dallas
* 17.4 Diocese of Davenport
* 17.5 Diocese of Honolulu
* 17.6 Archdiocese of Chicago
* 17.7 Archdiocese of Los Angeles
* 17.8 Archdiocese of Louisville
* 17.9 Archdiocese of Miami
* 17.10 Diocese of Orange
* 17.11 Diocese of Phoenix
* 17.12 Archdiocese of Portland
* 17.13 Diocese of San Diego
* 17.14 Diocese of Spokane
* 17.15 Diocese of Tucson
* 17.16 Archdiocese of San Antonio

So roughly 2 dozen or so instances of Archdioceses abusing their power and status in a religion of 1 billion worldwide, with 3000 dioceses. I won’t bore you with the math, but the percentage would fall well outside the spectrum of anything a reasonable person would call widespread.

I didn’t pick this fight to defend anything that has happened or is still happening with in the hierarchy of the Church to defend pedophiles, but you can’t defend calling that widespread.

Let’s not let the numbers run away from us here folks. I think getting caught up on what we can consider widespread in terms of abuse would be detracting from the heart of this discussion, which seems to be the perennial downfall of religion.

Religion and science seem also to be at odds, and at any point one will be losing and one will be gaining, as it seems impossible for their to be some kind of stasis in this relationship. Currently, science seems to be pulling ahead, but I am with your brain on this one. The cultural shift–a welcoming shift, mind you–that has allowed atheists greater expression.

I welcome this shift, but care not for the fear mongering.

Fair point p.surprise. You touched on one point I wanted to make, but didn’t articulate very well. Science and religion have met head on in the last 5 years in a way that we have not really seen, and people have had to reconcile their faith with undeniable scientific facts, which is often difficult to do. People grappling with this idea, coupled with a society more willing to accept non-believers, may project the image of a society losing religion, but I really think that is not the correct conclusion.

How is science tied to the state? and what does the separation of church and state have to do with science? Science, in my view at least, is just a higher form of intellectual and technological growth; bound of course by the scientific process.
Which is the one argument i believe i see for their differences: religion stresses the use of holy texts as the source of answers, while science asks to find an “answer” and support it with research, trials and ultimately questioning. Faith is established only after the scientific process has engrained an hypothesis deeply enough to call “fact.”

KG Elliot says: “More seriously, the real fight coming for religion is when science begins to enable immortality.”

Wonderful point.. and even though science is working for that (immortality).. it seems that tied in its very laws (those of Thermodynamics) that NOTHING is eternal except for matter/energy itself, and even then not in any particular form but only so much as it cannot be destroyed outright. Nonetheless, religion’s “guarantee” of immortality is less proven then say, the existence of anti-matter. Outside of each given religion’s holy texts, there is little supplemental evidence.

Brian says that religion is dying a slow death. If we are to understand this article we must remember to think outside our lifespan, even outside that of our children’s. I don’t believe he is talking so much about it actually dying but more that, compared to where we were fifty or even one-hundred years ago, changes are apparent. For example, Kennedy’s election was shocking at the time because he was Catholic as opposed to Protestant. Candidates today have slightly more leeway then fourty years ago. Sure, the bible belt and the East Coast consider religion more important then over here in California, but it seems to me that none of the candidates are using the “faith” of their opponents as a weapon, or at least to the degree of yesteryear. Their “beliefs” are still important, in the sense of their stances on various issues, but it seems alot less likely for someone to be beaten in a political race because communion is more or less important then baptism, or because of a candidates stance on papal infallibility.