Young people are leaving the faith. Here's why.

[Cosmic Charlie]

I've went through Plato's most significant dialogues, Aristotle's Organon (and several other works, such as the Rhetoric and the Ethics), Aquinas's Summa, Confuscius's Analects, and many of the works of John Searle and Friedrech Nietzsche. I am currently working through Pascal's Pensees.

Additionally, I have had a less thorough exposure to Marcus Aurelius, Plotinus, Augustine, Mill, Kant, Descartes, Mozi, Lao Tzu, Locke, and Hume. I have had fleeting exposure to many more. I also regularly keep up with the blog of the philosopher Edward Feser and have heard most of the podcasts in the history of philosophy without any gaps. For completeness, I suppose I should note that I don't need explanations to understand most of the jokes in Existential Comics

So I put all of that on one side. On the other we have a video from Bill Nye, who is no authority on Philosophy, in which he rambles about why he is dissastified with it and where he is not able to stick to a clear point or really come up with a good definition of what philosophy actually does.

My options are to either think that Bill Nye knows far more about philosophy than I do, and that all my experience with the works of actual philosophers meant nothing to the question of what philosophy is, or that Bill Nye doesn't know what he is talking about. Somehow it's not hard for me to come to the conclusion that Bill Nye doesn't know what he is talking about.

Hey, I'll differ to your expertise on the matter.

Would you be kind enough to explain to me like I'm 5 just exactly where he went wrong ?

 

[keith99]

Seriously, I would expect a college pot session to have a more coherent and accurate description of philosophy than that. It's clear that he doesn't have a clue what goes on Philosophy. This in and of itself would be fine, if he kept his mouth shut. But no, he made a video about it. (As for Neil, you'll notice that the question is motivated by his opinion on philosophy which is equally as clueless and dismissive.)

Moon, I'm sorry but you don't have a firm grasp of what Philosophy is because Nye gave a perfectly good critique of the subject.[/QUOTE]

Actually no. If one thinks that Nye was talking about Philosophy as taught in college or what historically philosophers deal with he was way off base. If he was talking more about philosophy as used by those who want a smokescreen to defend a pet position that goes against all evidence or as a guaranteed meal ticket because it is king then he was spot on.

Context matters.

 

[Martinius]

The article text emphasized science but the actual stats given say little about that. Personally, my experience tells me that we lose young people due to generally poor catechesis in the teen years and also because most formal religious education ends with Confirmation, somewhere in the early to mid-teen years. Third is the ignorance of adults regarding science and what the Church teaches about it.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Hey, I'll differ to your expertise on the matter.

Would you be kind enough to explain to me like I'm 5 just exactly where he went wrong ?

Like you're five? Sure.

The way that Bill Nye describes philosophy is completely false to what it actually does. His description is wrong if we think about what philosophy did in he past, and what it does today. Philosophy is not just a bunch of meaningless questions. IN fact it is necessary to answer many questions asked by philosophy before we can even figure out whether things like science, mathematics, history and so on are reliable.

Wait, that might have been a bit too complicated for your five your old mind. But I don't know if can make it simpler for you.

Now, since I'm guessing that you aren't actually five, my real answer for you would be this. Pick up a work by Plato, or Aristotle, or Aquinas or any other prominent philosopher. You can quickly verify that what is contained in those works is not well described by Bill Nye's characterization of randomly put together and meaningless questions. The approach of actually picking up a book yourself is even empirical!

 

[bill5]

Lot of interesting comments here. A few thoughts on the article offhand:

- I find it a bit weak and not as stressful as many, apparently. Cmon....they're interviewing people as young as 15. A great many kids in their teens (and often beyond) have reather limited if not downright poor reasoning skills (a quote like "I need replicable, peer reviewed, conclusive proof that a deity exists and I’m guaranteed a happy afterlife to believe in God” is a shining example; that's so weak it's absurd...sounds like an 8 yr old talking). Further, they are still figuring out who they are and often go through a rebellious stage....and what better way than to turn your back on one of the most "oppressive" things a parent brings to bear, esp when it comes with all these added restrictions/reasons for not letting you do what you want or what is "cool?" In fact, he even pointed that out in the article: one of the most common reasons they said they leave is "that they did not like the Catholic Church’s rules and judgmental approach." Not exactly what I'd call a heady clash of science/religion/philosophy. There are more quotes/etc in the article that underline this even more.

I would be far more interested in polls of people say 25+ to see who left RCC and of those, who stayed that way vs came back to it, as well as of those who left and stayed, how was their relationship with their parents/family, and so on. As the OP himself says, this is a complex and varied issue.

Young people don't just think that science and religion conflict, they think that science conflicts with philosophy generally.

No offense and not disagreeing per se, but where are you getting this (and why are we diverging to philosophy)? I ask because my impression is that the vast majority of kids are too ignorant/apathetic to even have an opinion - never mind an informed one - about that at all. It's more of a "so like, whatever"

young people saying that things are only true if they are verified by the "scientific method" (which usually remains vague, and when defined never corresponds to what scientists actually do in practice).

Only the painfully ignorant ones, frankly. (The real tragedy is that many grown adults believe similarly)

Why is it necessary for things to be "replicable" or "peer reviewed."

Generally speaking? For validity. Of course "replicable" doesn't always apply, but if someone claims something, wouldn't you want it reviewed by others knowledgeble in the topic to validate/invalidate the claim?

But of course this only applies to science. And I'm amazed that many don't seem to get what SCIENCE is about. They need to look the word up and kick those brain cells into gear. Anyone who says "prove God exists" might as well tattoo "I AM STUPID" on their forehead.

The good news is that when young people learn the actual history of the Church, or get a grounding in real philosophy, or generally just look into things themselves in an in depth way rather than relying on vague second-hand reports from their teachers and peers they can very easily get excited about all of it, including the teachings of the Church. The bad news is that it is very difficult to get young people to look into things to that level.

It's kind of like posers of any fad: looking like you are in a band is easy and fun; actually learning how to play is hard and unrewarding at the start. Basically the same phenomenon is occurring with science.

Exactly...

Re the Bill Nye video, I'm also not wowed about someone majoring in philosophy who would turn to someone like Bill Nye, who isn't a philosopher or even a scientist, really, for their opinions on the value of philosophy. Does he go to the local beautician for stock market tips too? (And yes, that video was pretty pathetic; I'm embarrassed for the guy)

 

[MoonlessNight]

No offense and not disagreeing per se, but where are you getting this (and why are we diverging to philosophy)? I ask because my impression is that the vast majority of kids are too ignorant/apathetic to even have an opinion - never mind an informed one - about that at all. It's more of a "so like, whatever"

Partially from observations of students on campus, both from myself and from colleagues in the science and philosophy departments, partially from observations of pop science promoters (who in my experience are generally very well liked by young people.)

I will agree that they are generally apathetic, which is part of why they often have no idea of what science or philosophy are. If they cared they would look into things. But even apathetic people will voice opinions on topics that they know little about, if pressed.

Take the current election, for example. There are certainly many people who don't care much about whether Hillary or Trump would be elected, since they dislike both. But if you pressed them to give an opinion on the current election, most people would not be brave enough to admit that they don't care, since political involvement is valued in this country. So if pressed they would mumble some platitudes that they think might be accurate, and if forced to vote they would vote in accordance with those half remembered platitudes.

I think much the same thing is going on with regards to science and the Church among young people. If they were honest they don't care much about either, but since both religion and science come up all the time in modern culture they have to mumble that they like one over the other.

Generally speaking? For validity. Of course "replicable" doesn't always apply, but if someone claims something, wouldn't you want it reviewed by others knowledgeble in the topic to validate/invalidate the claim?

But of course this only applies to science. And I'm amazed that many don't seem to get what SCIENCE is about. They need to look the word up and kick those brain cells into gear. Anyone who says "prove God exists" might as well tattoo "I AM STUPID" on their forehead.

Sure, but if you use "peer review" in such a broad way it hardly has anything to do with science anymore. Under that definition medieval universities were much more committed to peer review than current journals. Medieval philosophers would routinely criticize their peers, often in not so nice ways. Much of what happens in peer reviews in journals amounts to grammar checks and making sure that the person in question hasn't said anything completely insane. Often the reviewers don't have access to the data and haven't seen the experiments, and they might not even be specialists in the particular branch of the field that they are reviewing (ex. they might be physicists but have little familiar with the specific models used by the paper in question) so they don't have the possibility of doing much more.

However, I doubt that there are many people who hold "peer review" in high esteem who would also agree that medieval universities were doing peer review. There's some undefined "scienceness" necessary in the background to do peer review. I don't know, maybe you have to wear lab coats or something.

Exactly...

Re the Bill Nye video, I'm also not wowed about someone majoring in philosophy who would turn to someone like Bill Nye, who isn't a philosopher or even a scientist, really, for their opinions on the value of philosophy. Does he go to the local beautician for stock market tips too? (And yes, that video was pretty pathetic; I'm embarrassed for the guy)

They shouldn't, but they do.

It kind of reminds me of the stance of Alice Cooper, when he is asked about politics. He generally says something along the lines of the only people who know less about politics than rockers are idiots who get their political opinions from rockers. But sadly there too many musicians will give their political opinions and expect to be treated with authority.

Generally people have trouble separating expertise from popularity.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson did in fact attack religion, in particular the Catholic Church, the very first episode of Cosmos. He went after the Church as being anti-science and of course misrepresented the history and of course the case with Galileo.

In fact, he was criticized by scientist for doing after the 1st episode of Cosmos aired.

I was disappointed because I was looking forward for the PBS bringing back Cosmos, which I use to watch back when Carl Sagan hosted it.

The following episodes were more about Neil DeGrasse Tyson and his giant ego, than science. It's probably why the show was cancelled.

Jim

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

nm.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

I've went through Plato's most significant dialogues, Aristotle's Organon (and several other works, such as the Rhetoric and the Ethics), Aquinas's Summa, Confuscius's Analects, and many of the works of John Searle and Friedrech Nietzsche. I am currently working through Pascal's Pensees.

Additionally, I have had a less thorough exposure to Marcus Aurelius, Plotinus, Augustine, Mill, Kant, Descartes, Mozi, Lao Tzu, Locke, and Hume. I have had fleeting exposure to many more. I also regularly keep up with the blog of the philosopher Edward Feser and have heard most of the podcasts in the history of philosophy without any gaps. For completeness, I suppose I should note that I don't need explanations to understand most of the jokes in Existential Comics

So I put all of that on one side. On the other we have a video from Bill Nye, who is no authority on Philosophy, in which he rambles about why he is dissastified with it and where he is not able to stick to a clear point or really come up with a good definition of what philosophy actually does.

My options are to either think that Bill Nye knows far more about philosophy than I do, and that all my experience with the works of actual philosophers meant nothing to the question of what philosophy is, or that Bill Nye doesn't know what he is talking about. Somehow it's not hard for me to come to the conclusion that Bill Nye doesn't know what he is talking about.

With your extensive experience, may I ask where you draw our the evidence or develop the reasoning that leads you to believe in God?

 

[MoonlessNight]

With your extensive experience, may I ask where you draw our the evidence or develop the reasoning that leads you to believe in God?

When God spoke to Moses, he said "I AM." When Jesus claimed divinity he did so be saying "before Abraham was, I AM." God is tied up with existence itself, and in this respect He can be recognized through the use of reason. There are a variety of ways to go at it, such as by considering the difference between necessary and contingent things, or considering the difference between potential existence and actual existence (and most particularly in how the potential becomes actual). Together with some basic observations (such as that there is change in the universe, or that some things exist but did not have to exist) you can come up with an argument that shows that there must be something with an essential characteristic of God, such as a being whose existence is completely necessary, or a being in which all potentials are actualized. Once there you can reason out other properties which necessarily must come with the initial one, such as simplicity, uniqueness and eternity.

This was the approach taken by Aristotle, Aquinas and Avicenna, among others.

Of course, you can't reason out all characteristics of God in this way. Aquinas didn't think that you could determine whether the universe was created by God in history (as opposed to be created eternally without a beginning) through reason alone, you needed to use other sources (such as scripture, or now using astronomical observations as interpreted by our models of physics) to determine that the universe actually began. Humans can't even understand all aspects of God. You might also note that Aristotle was a Greek pagan (though not a typical version of pagan in his day), Aquinas was a Catholic and Avicenna was a Muslim, so all three would have had differing conceptions of the remaining characteristics of God. At some point you have to actually look for God in the world, which can be done either in your own life or through historical investigation.

To put things more simply, reason can tell you THAT God is, but not WHO God is.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When God spoke to Moses, he said "I AM." When Jesus claimed divinity he did so be saying "before Abraham was, I AM." God is tied up with existence itself, and in this respect He can be recognized through the use of reason. There are a variety of ways to go at it, such as by considering the difference between necessary and contingent things, or considering the difference between potential existence and actual existence (and most particularly in how the potential becomes actual). Together with some basic observations (such as that there is change in the universe, or that some things exist but did not have to exist) you can come up with an argument that shows that there must be something with an essential characteristic of God, such as a being whose existence is completely necessary, or a being in which all potentials are actualized. Once there you can reason out other properties which necessarily must come with the initial one, such as simplicity, uniqueness and eternity.

This was the approach taken by Aristotle, Aquinas and Avicenna, among others.

Of course, you can't reason out all characteristics of God in this way. Aquinas didn't think that you could determine whether the universe was created by God in history (as opposed to be created eternally without a beginning) through reason alone, you needed to use other sources (such as scripture, or now using astronomical observations as interpreted by our models of physics) to determine that the universe actually began. Humans can't even understand all aspects of God. You might also note that Aristotle was a Greek pagan (though not a typical version of pagan in his day), Aquinas was a Catholic and Avicenna was a Muslim, so all three would have had differing conceptions of the remaining characteristics of God. At some point you have to actually look for God in the world, which can be done either in your own life or through historical investigation.

To put things more simply, reason can tell you THAT God is, but not WHO God is.

Excellent post!


Jim

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Here's why:

"For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." - Eph 6:12
.