Is it really about what is true and false?

[Resha Caner]

The latest Pew research on world religion is interesting:
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

As is often touted here, the proportion of Christians in the world is shrinking. What is interesting, though, is that it is mainly due to declines in North America and Europe. Christianity is increasing in Africa, and Pew expects sub-Saharan Africa will become the "center" of Christianity in the future:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ty-is-poised-to-continue-its-southward-march/

Even more interesting, the religiously unaffiliated (atheists, agnostics, etc.) are also expected to decline as a proportion of world population:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-decline-as-a-share-of-the-worlds-population/

The religion that is gaining in proportion is Islam:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...e-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/

In all cases, Pew states that the primary reason for these shifts is simply procreation. In other words, it doesn't seem to be a direct result of education as is often stated here, but simply because Muslims and African cultures have more children.

So, maybe the way to settle the contest between Christians and atheists is to stop arguing and start growing our families.

 

[Chany]

The latest Pew research on world religion is interesting:
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/

As is often touted here, the proportion of Christians in the world is shrinking. What is interesting, though, is that it is mainly due to declines in North America and Europe. Christianity is increasing in Africa, and Pew expects sub-Saharan Africa will become the "center" of Christianity in the future:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ty-is-poised-to-continue-its-southward-march/

Even more interesting, the religiously unaffiliated (atheists, agnostics, etc.) are also expected to decline as a proportion of world population:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-decline-as-a-share-of-the-worlds-population/

The religion that is gaining in proportion is Islam:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...e-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/

In all cases, Pew states that the primary reason for these shifts is simply procreation. In other words, it doesn't seem to be a direct result of education as is often stated here, but simply because Muslims and African cultures have more children.

So, maybe the way to settle the contest between Christians and atheists is to stop arguing and start growing our families.

I don't see how education factors into this. What claim are you referring to about education? The one that points to a correlation between modern, developed people who have a higher education and religious unaffiliation?

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't see how education factors into this. What claim are you referring to about education? The one that points to a correlation between modern, developed people who have a higher education and religious unaffiliation?

Yes.

 

[Chany]

Yes.

It is hard to determine what actually goes on in some cases. For example, Saudi Arabia has a lot of money and is relatively economically developed. However, leaving Islam in Saudi Arabia is punishable by death, so you are not exactly going to get reliable statistics about religious diversity in a country like this.

This seems to go along with what a poster (keith99 if I recall correctly) said: it may not be that atheism is really "rising", as in, more people are now switching from belief in a religion to disbelief in all religions, but that people who once faced social and legal condemnation for their disbelief no longer face this problem and can be open about what they think.

 

[TillICollapse]

So, maybe the way to settle the contest between Christians and atheists is to stop arguing and start growing our families.

What is the goal of the "contest" and what is the prize for the winner ?

 

[Resha Caner]

This seems to go along with what a poster (keith99 if I recall correctly) said: it may not be that atheism is really "rising", as in, more people are now switching from belief in a religion to disbelief in all religions, but that people who once faced social and legal condemnation for their disbelief no longer face this problem and can be open about what they think.

That is a definite possibility. But as I said, Pew Research doesn't indicate rising disassociation around the world. Rather, that segment is falling. And while social pressure may still be high for Muslims in western nations to remain Muslim, the pressures are not nearly as high as in Middle-Eastern Islamic nations. Yet Islam is still the fastest rising religion in many western nations - despite the fact that most Muslims in those nations are more prosperous and better educated.

Still, if it were social pressures keeping people Muslim - even in western nations - the point would still remain that discovering the truth is not what is driving people in their decision to affiliate or not affiliate. IIRC, the recent article in National Geographic spoke to the fact that there are also social pressures for scientists to affiliate their opinions with sciency things.

I'm also aware of a study done on attempts to "educate" people about evolution. The authors conveyed almost a sense of shock that the results were not a significant shift toward accepting evolution. Rather, the result was to further polarize people. Neutral people were more likely to chose sides after being educated about evolution, but they didn't always choose evolution. Further, some switched from creationism to evolution, but others switched from evolution to creationism. It was not the result they were expecting.

 

[Resha Caner]

What is the goal of the "contest" and what is the prize for the winner ?

The goal is for your opinion to win, and the prize is that you get to spend more time babysitting grandchildren when you get old.

 

[Chany]

That is a definite possibility. But as I said, Pew Research doesn't indicate rising disassociation around the world. Rather, that segment is falling. And while social pressure may still be high for Muslims in western nations to remain Muslim, the pressures are not nearly as high as in Middle-Eastern Islamic nations. Yet Islam is still the fastest rising religion in many western nations - despite the fact that most Muslims in those nations are more prosperous and better educated.

Still, if it were social pressures keeping people Muslim - even in western nations - the point would still remain that discovering the truth is not what is driving people in their decision to affiliate or not affiliate. IIRC, the recent article in National Geographic spoke to the fact that there are also social pressures for scientists to affiliate their opinions with sciency things.

I'm also aware of a study done on attempts to "educate" people about evolution. The authors conveyed almost a sense of shock that the results were not a significant shift toward accepting evolution. Rather, the result was to further polarize people. Neutral people were more likely to chose sides after being educated about evolution, but they didn't always choose evolution. Further, some switched from creationism to evolution, but others switched from evolution to creationism. It was not the result they were expecting.

You do not consider Saudi Arabia, a country in which being Muslim is a prerequisite for citizenship and will behead citizens for leaving Islam, to be an Islamic nation? Please name some countries are Middle-Eastern Islamic nations, because a number of the countries I consider to be in the Middle East practice Sharia law to some extent.

 

[Resha Caner]

You do not consider Saudi Arabia, a country in which being Muslim is a prerequisite for citizenship and will behead citizens for leaving Islam, to be an Islamic nation? Please name some countries are Middle-Eastern Islamic nations, because a number of the countries I consider to be in the Middle East practice Sharia law to some extent.

I'm confused. Of course Saudi Arabia is an Islamic nation. What did I say that made you think otherwise?

 

[Chany]

I'm confused. Of course Saudi Arabia is an Islamic nation. What did I say that made you think otherwise?

Sorry, disregard my post. I misread the post I quoted, as my mind put the "not" in a weird spot. I thought you said that the amount of pressure in Islamic Middle Eastern countries to be Muslim was not as high as in Western nations.

 

[FireDragon76]

Secularism is a Christian heresy. The Reformation certainly had a hand in it, especially the radical Swiss reformation.

I think the answer is to return to the ancient faith and find the value of the vocation of family life, as opposed to the secular careerism and materialism embraced by western culture. Still, I think this has to be balanced with a qualified acceptance of modernity. We cannot go back to living in the past, but we can certainly go back and learn from the past.

 

[Resha Caner]

Secularism is a Christian heresy. The Reformation certainly had a hand in it, especially the radical Swiss reformation.

I think the answer is to return to the ancient faith and find the value of the vocation of family life, as opposed to the secular careerism and materialism embraced by western culture. Still, I think this has to be balanced with a qualified acceptance of modernity. We cannot go back to living in the past, but we can certainly go back and learn from the past.

I'm not sure how this relates to my OP.

I'm also not sure who you consider to be a radical Swiss reformer. Do you mean Zwingli? I'm not too familiar with that vein of history aside from their theological errors. I suppose you could put together a chain of events that connects certain errors during the Reformation to modern secular views, but I think the Renaissance was more a contributor to the secular rise than was the Reformation. Further, I don't see a need to "go back to the past". The truth has never died out, and so one can find a consistent Christian theology that persisted through all ages. It's just not always attached to any one particular church (lower case 'c'). Actually, I would love to write a book about that some day ...

Anyway, with all that said I agree with you that we can certainly learn from the past.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's true, the Reneissance was a factor. But compared to the middle ages, some of the Reformers were very extreme.

The theology and praxis of Zwingli and later Calvin spread to England and caused religious strife there. The Puritans were committed to stripping Christianity of all visual and cultural symbols, with Christianity reduced to an inner experience transmitted verbally. Churches were changed to "assemblies" and "meeting houses", and the concept of sacred space and sacred things were gradually lost.

You can see a backlash in the last century against some of this with the liturgical movement in mainstream Protestant churches, but the cultural legacy of "the stripping of the altars" persists.

 

[FireDragon76]

An increased birth rate would beneficial of course but few orthodox Christians are committed raising larger families. So I don't see how this can be compelled, especially because some of the most authoritarian denominations (Roman Catholics) have failed to persuade their followers on that topic.

I think it would be better to focus efforts on theology, missionary activity, and evangelism.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think it would be better to focus efforts on theology, missionary activity, and evangelism.

Personally I think it takes a crisis. 9/11 is a good example. Church attendance shot way up immediately after, and then slowly dwindled back to normal. People always think they have a better way, and don't have a good sense of what the world would be like without the Church.

 

[FireDragon76]

The western church has done a poor job selling itself, being infatuated with controversies from the 17th century. Unless you have pathological guilt, for instance, its hard to see the appeal of Roman Catholicism, confessional Lutheranism or Presbyterianism, since these traditions focus on assuaging subjective experiences of guilt and the fear of hell, neither of which most people take seriously now days.

The Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals, and Unitarians are among some religious groups that are growing in the US. Probably because they have very different visions of the Christian life.

 

[Resha Caner]

a

The western church has done a poor job selling itself, being infatuated with controversies from the 17th century. Unless you have pathological guilt, for instance, its hard to see the appeal of Roman Catholicism, confessional Lutheranism or Presbyterianism, since these traditions focus on assuaging subjective experiences of guilt and the fear of hell, neither of which most people take seriously now days.

The Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals, and Unitarians are among some religious groups that are growing in the US. Probably because they have very different visions of the Christian life.

That's an interesting dichotomy you're suggesting. The EO is actually very close to confessional Lutheranism. In fact, many "defecting" Lutherans choose the EO. IMO they choose it because it is so similar. but has a mystical element that Lutheranism doesn't. My further opinion would be the mysticism they're attracted to is not Christian, but ideas from other religions that have seeped in.

I would say the same of Pentecostals and Unitarians - in that order. Pentecostals are more mystical than the EO, and Unitarians even moreso to the point that I don't consider them Christian.

I see that as a baby boomer trend - the counter culture of the 1960s and the fascination with the Dali Lama, the Beatles, etc. I hope its just temporary, and it appears it may be. Postmoderns bring a different challenge.

 

[FireDragon76]

Orthodox mysticism is not pagan. It's like a really deep form of spirituality, like pietism or Pentecostalism but more cerebral.

Judaism itself had and has a mystical tradition. I would argue the New Testament has it as well. Both John and Paul have mystical elements in their theology. the point of Christian mysticism is experiential knowledge of God. If you do not think God can be known, you have a weird taken on Christianity.

 

[Resha Caner]

Orthodox mysticism is not pagan. It's like a really deep form of spirituality, like pietism or Pentecostalism but more cerebral.

Trying to convince a confessional Lutheran with a reference to pietism is a bad idea. Mysticism walks dangerously close to certain forms of deism and gnosticism.

Judaism itself had and has a mystical tradition. I would argue the New Testament has it as well.

Many gnostics have argued the same thing, which is exactly the purpose of John's epistles - to discount such things.

If you do not think God can be known, you have a weird taken on Christianity.

Of course God is knowable - at least the part he has revealed. It's just that you don't need mysticism to know God. The incarnation was a very physical, historical event.

 

[FireDragon76]

Mysticism walks dangerously close to certain forms of deism and gnosticism.

Except Orthodoxy sees gnosis as connected to what you would call sanctification, not justification.

Many gnostics have argued the same thing, which is exactly the purpose of John's epistles - to discount such things.

I don't think John discounts that we could have an experience of God apart from "Word and Sacrament". How do you think Paul had his experience? That was certainly a vision, a direct experience of God.

Furthermore, Eastern Orthodox mysticism isn't about the peculiar beliefs of the Gnostics, all of which are heresy in the Orthodox church.

The incarnation was a very physical, historical event.

I guess you think of the incarnation as merely an historical event, it would be easy to dismiss Eastern Orthodox mysticism.

The point of Eastern Orthodox mysticism... we don't have to wait till heaven to find glorification and the vision of God. Glorification can happen in this life, albeit imperfectly.