Faith in the West
January 5th, 2007 by 
soulster
According to a Harris poll this last October, most adult Americans believe in God (73%), but fewer would say they are absolutely certain (only 58%) [here]. According to Harris, both these numbers have declined over the past three years from 79% who believe and 66% who are absolutely certain. [For a broader view of religious opinions, check out this listing of several news polls]
If I were to venture a guess as to why these numbers are declining in a pretty rapid manner, I would think it has been the frequency of traumatic events over the last couple of years, and perhaps the failure of the faith community to respond to those events in a large way (in fact, in several cases, some would say the response has been hindered by religion). In my conversations with people, the problem of pain is much more central since the war in Iraq, the Dafur crisis, Hurrican Katrina, the Asian ocean-quake, etc. (See section of the poll on whether God controls events on earth.) Elsewhere on this blog, drunkentune has mentioned how scientifically ignorant the public might be, so I think this affective issue more likely the cause of decline than an increased awareness of the claims of science, etc.
Also interesting is the idea that:
Not everyone who describes themselves as Christian or Jewish believes in God. Indeed, only 76 percent of Protestants, 64 percent of Catholics, and 30 percent of Jews say they are “absolutely certain” there is a God. However, most Christians who describe themselves as “Born Again” (93%) are absolutely certain there is a God.
This hints to me that there are many functional agnostics within religious circles, which parrellels my own story. The more I share about my experience of agnosticism within religion, the more people I meet who identify with it. I think, due to the threat to group cohesion, most of these agnostics are “in the closet” until someone says it’s ok to come out with it and discuss it.
According to a Financial Times/Harris poll [here], Americans are more likely to believe in God than their European counterparts (France having the least with 27% believeing in God). Some commentators believe that Europe is simply ahead in a trend of de-Christianization that will increase all across the Western world. This idea is somewhat controversial, however, given the abscence of long-term data and other trends.
On the topic of getting along, it is interesting to note that fewer Americans than residents in some European countries feel that religion should be taught in state schools. It seems that, since the majority of American’s believe in God but do not support state-sponsored religious education, even most religious people are in favor of a separation of church and state.
However, polling data (especially news polls) shows that there still is much remaining work in the area of tolerance and understanding. Religious people still do not know much about other faiths and are intolerant of people with no faith. People from around the world, and the international media, have been more urgently discussing religious tolerance in the current environment of increase sensitivity. In one such article, summarizing a seminar at the massive Urbana 2006 youth missionary conference [here], a missiologist encouraged Christians to adopt these values:
1. Love people
2. Respect the other
3. Learn about the culture and history that one will minister to
4. Be teachable. Don’t be Mr and Mrs Know Everything
I think it might be a good project for the authors and readers of this blog to suggest some ‘human guidelines’ for living in our current times where much work on tolerance and co-existence needs to be done. Even if a transition from Christianity is occuring in the West, we need a road map to get us through the transition, which should include thinking about interaction with the developing world where religiousity is still the norm. It seems that our current operation largely in the blind is leading to very mixed results, if not some terrible outcomes down the road.
Posted in belief, cooperation, current issues, spectrum of belief | 
January 5th, 2007 at 11:59 am
soulster,
I agree with you that world events are likely responsible for such changes. I wish it were attributable to education - and in places like Sweden and Norway, with cultures vastly different than the U.S., education may be responsible - but that’s merely a dream I have. It could be that a base argument is being made for the Problem of Evil: ‘If God is all-good and perfect, and wishes for good and perfection, then why is there suffering and imperfection around us?’
It’s possible that logic for or against belief won’t sway a majority of questioning believers, but acceptence of the state of the world here and now. Of course, as an atheist, I think that Christians selectively choose examples of how the world operates to fit their worldview. Pain and suffering greatly outnumber joy, and I’d like to reverse this. We need more love and respect, not less. I’m sure everyone can agree with that. The world is brutal, and I wish to prevent brutality to others, so I think it’s great that the missiologist’s values adhere nicely to my own.
Again, this is a prime example of believers and nonbelievers coming to the same real-world conclusions on how we should behave.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Interesting poll. I’ve just finished reading “Ye will say I am no Christian”, a compilation of the correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. It is encouraging to see that their more optimistic vision for religious freedom has come about. America and now most of Europe and several other cultures spread around the globe seem to have reached a state of liberty in the public sphere to express a wide variety of religious (or anti-religious) ideas. They spoke of what they observed as “corruptions of Christianity” (mostly related to exercise of political influence to stifle individual choice in belief). To a large degree, the tolerant view expressed by the speaker at Urbana is what they envisioned if their decendents kept the dream of liberty alive. It is interesting that such a large number of people do not hold a fatalistic view of God being a celestial puppetmaster. That is a hopeful sign that they will continue to value freedom, tolerance, and personal responsibility.
January 6th, 2007 at 1:35 am
soulster, you kinda skip around in this post, from the decline of faith among Europeans and then to tolerance etc. I’m trying to see what the connection is.
I’m not sure how you can claim that the “faith community” (What does that mean? Who does that include? Or not?) is not responding fully to the tragedies around the world. Please explain.
Further, being a little uncertain about the existance of God does not make one a “functional agnostic,” or a “closted agnostic.” I think, rather, that most people don’t want to come across as being arrogantly certain in their opinions. Evangelicals have a certain internal cultural pressure to proclaim unwaveringly that isn’t there with Catholics, old school Protestants, or Jews.
[Tangent: I think this Evangelical pressure is in fact one of the biggest problems with Evangelical thought, or rather, lack thereof. See Mark Noll’s The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. The good news is that many Evangelicals are beginning to more deeply think about the roots of Christianity and in a more historical way. I can only hope this will lead them to a deeper and more historical Church.]
dt:”I agree with you that world events are likely responsible for such changes.”
Now, I understand that you mean that perhaps reflection upon these events by Westerners might result in these Westerners becoming agnostic or atheist, but “world events” are always happening, war famine plague etc etc. In most parts of the world religion is experiencing growth, including those most hard-hit by “world events.” (See Jenkins “The New Faces of Christianity.) In fact, Europe has been relatively uneffected by the traumatic events of the last decade, so I don’t think that this explaination really fits. There is some deeper attitude within Western socieities that causes them to react in such a way to these events. Europe has been experiencing a decline in faith for at least the last hundred years, before (and some would say contributing to) the World Wars.
So, what is this “deeper attitude.” I don’t know, I just took some sleepy anti-sinus-pressure medicine and it’s kicking in right about…. now.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:21 am
soulser,
ben makes a good point about the ‘faith community’, given the historical fact that different religions, and different factions of the same religion have not always worked together harmoniously, and still have trouble seeing eye-to-eye even today. I’m interested in words and their use, and the use of ‘faith community’ began as political lingo with Bill Clinton’s ‘Faith-Based and Community Initiatives’, then passed on to George W. Bush with his use of ‘the faith community’ more directly.
ben,
Good point. After giving it some thought, I’ve come up with a possible reason. Now, I’m just writing this out and seeing where it’s headed, but I think that there’s two possible outcomes to a catastrophe: either more faith in their respective religion, or they see the world in a different light. To say otherwise would to say that mass murder has no effect on the individual’s psyche. If one believes that natural disasters are controlled by God, the world isn’t as chaotic as it seems. In many places of the world where their standard of living is very low, I think they continue to validate their religion in this way; in America, there are a few vocal fundamentalists that do not accept the view that ‘Acts of God’ are natural and nondiscriminatory in who they kill. These fundamentalists and their response to Hurricane Katrina come to mind.
No matter what, it’s obvious that Europe’s culture is changing, I hope, for the better. For some reason, be it the secular governments, increases in science education, or other factors.
January 6th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
ben:
I guess I was just posting some stuff I thought was interesting and had to do with the themes of this blog. I do jump around a bit. As far as these polls by Harris, I thought they were relevant since Harris has been the first pollster to ever set faith in America less the the eightieth or ninetieth percentile. They say their poll is more accurate since it’s done online and illimates the pressure to lie to pollsters about embarrassing things.
The news polls on the polling report link contained stats on tolerance, and it was a theme repeating during my research, so I thought I’d include that, since it would likely also be important to others on this site.
When I say “faith community,” I mean all aggregates of people who would claim faith as the key uniting factor. I think a fair case could be made that there is a growing sentiment, whether true or not, that the religious in general have failed to respond in an equal or greater way to the tramatic events of our time. Even though many of these events are not happening in the West, they are still traumatically experienced through global media and attitudes and interpretations are influenced greatly by our responses to these events. Therefore, I think the philosophical problem of pain is gaining traction in the complex of a general cultural decrease in the relevance of faith (limited to the West as noted in the title and stats). And whether true or not, a great many people see Bush and Red American as a unofficial leader of the American faith community, which has added to disappointment and has, I think, ties to the Problem of Pain and relevance issue as well.
I would agree with your read of the stats on certainity across the differing faith groups. Drunkentune has pointed out how questioning is encouraged in the Jewish tradition, which might be why people can be the most open about uncertainty. Now whether than makes people ‘functional agnostics’ is left up to interpretation. I’m sure not all who are uncertain would self-identify as agnostic. But I think many are, and I am meeting more who don’t mind the label. They are simply not sure there is a God all the time, which is, I think by definition, some form of agnosticism (to not know). I say it is functional because it is often seen first in certain personal commitments and actions, and if you dig, people will then talk about their doubts. I don’t see anything wrong with the term because, for me, it has no stigma, and I still talk about my struggle with agnosticism in churches even though I am a “church leader” of sorts.
drunkentune:
The useage of ‘faith community’ is actually older than the last two administrations. It goes back to the civil rights era and was seen as a term more flexible than the Church, Judaism, Islam, etc. and could be both local (your faith community) and translocal (the faith community).
January 6th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
dt:”I think that there’s two possible outcomes to a catastrophe: either more faith in their respective religion, or they see the world in a different light.”
Yes, exactly, but you haven’t described a reason, simply an effect. The two different responses indicate two different internal and pre-existing attitudes before the tragic event. I don’t think that it’s a “few” in America who are religious, and we are perhaps one of the most post-industrialized nation on the planet.
dt:”No matter what, it’s obvious that Europe’s culture is changing, I hope, for the better.”
I don’t see how you can say that–rising allegiance to pre-rational religions like Wicca, the increasing stridency of the Islamists in Europe, a reproduction rate less than replacement level, a rebirth of the ultra-right, euthanazia, infanticide, the list goes on.
January 6th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
ben,
I agree with you. In America, there are a ‘few vocal fundamentalists’, but there’s plenty of religious people in America. I think that (since the religious leaders that claim God is in control of natural disasters consist of the Religious Right, and around 20% of Americans - mostly fundamentalist Protestants and Baptists - consider themselves part of the Religious Right’s base), at least a fifth of Americans believe this.
If there are ‘pre-rational religions’, are there then rational religions? Are there post-rational religions? Emigrating Islamists in France, the new ultra-right in Italy, and fundamentalist Christians in England seem to be rebelling against the changing dominant culture, just as there have been incidents of fascist and Islamist attacks in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
I don’t see how a low reproductive rate, the right to euthanasia or the right to abortion is bad for any country. How long is the list really?
January 6th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
It might seem a little strange coming from a believer, but I think a great deal of this de-Christianization might be a good thing. Douglas John Hall writes:
I am one of a growing number of people who think that the culture of Christendom has lead to a horrible ambiguity in the faith. Far from appropriate contextualization, it is a nominalism that is easily infected and seems to simply affirm whatever ills anyone with an agenda seeks to promote. While we don’t hunger for the narrowness of fundamentalism or the exclusionary heart of denominationalism, we hope that in the de-Christianization of the West we will find again a faith exposed to the elements. Such a faith would be weathered and strong, and not sheltered and ignorant. It would be a faith in conversation with the whole world on its journey through the frontier of humanity, instead of chanting its own monologue in a protected corner.
January 6th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Hear, hear!
Again, I wholeheartedly agree - at least with his and your intentions and current view of Christianity in the world today. It just so happens my next post will be about believers that are ’straining every nerve to get everybody baptized, to get everybody married in church and onto our registers…’, so I think the direction of this conversation is great.
January 7th, 2007 at 5:39 am
“If there are ‘pre-rational religions’, are there then rational religions?”
Yes. Catholicism & Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, Atheism, much of Protestantism, some of Islam, pure Buddhism, some parts of Hinduism, various others.
“Are there post-rational religions?”
Hmm… Syncretism of all types, “fundamentalism” of all types.
“I don’t see how a low reproductive rate, the right to euthanasia or the right to abortion is bad for any country. How long is the list really?”
How long do you need the list to be with sterility, euthanasia, abortion, and infanticide as members of that list? Are these the marks of a healthy society? One that is willing to exert itself to face its internal and external challenges? Along with the other situations you named, what is good about the direction of society in Europe?
“the religious leaders that claim God is in control of natural disasters consist of the Religious Right,”
Consist? Wholly? Exclusively? This is unfounded, and something of a non-sequitur as well, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Here is mine, to restate: You seemed to be trying to say that poverty is the reason why people might respond to diaster with increased faith. I offer the United States as a counter-example.
“It might seem a little strange coming from a believer, but I think a great deal of this de-Christianization might be a good thing.”
It’s not that strange, contrarianism can be good for new insights, but I think that it’s not very well informed. A “great deal”? Whatever “sloughing-off” that should happen (in Europe) has happened long ago. God forbid that it should happen in the same way in the US. Church-hopping and inter-Awakening lulls in the USA are radically different than the situation of Europe for the last century. Please explain how de-Christianization of the type seen in Europe can at all be a good thing from the perspective of Christ.
“if we stop straining every nerve to get everybody baptized, to get everybody married in church and onto our registers”
This is strange. Why should we not work as hard as possible to baptize all the nations? That’s what Christ asked us to do. Keeping people “on our registers” is not at all the central concern of the Church today, and to claim so is a distortion of the severity of the situation in Europe.
“I am one of a growing number of people who think that the culture of Christendom has lead to a horrible ambiguity in the faith.”
Only for some. This “ambiguous faith”, this “easily infected nominalism” you speak of as being the “culture of Christendom”—it is currently really only characteristic of rightist American Evangelicalism and its plantings.
“It would be a faith in conversation with the whole world on its journey through the frontier of humanity, instead of chanting its own monologue in a protected corner.”
Again, this is a limited view. Historically and globally speaking, I’m not sure how you can characterize Christianity as a inward-looking and sclerotic religion.
[By the way: “Children of Men” is a pretty dang awesome movie, saw it tonight.]
January 7th, 2007 at 9:47 am
RE ben
“Why should we not work as hard as possible to baptize all the nations? That’s what Christ asked us to do.”
I think it is “very rude” to impose your religious beliefs on other people. In my opinion, it is perhaps akin to a cult indoctrinating new followers.
Let’s see how this one works?
“Why should we not work as hard as possible to convert all the nations to islam? That’s what Mohammad wants us to do.”
Dominionism is never pretty as far as I am concerned.
But, essentially the point of this comment is in reference to your belief that my previous comment to dave armstrong was “very rude.”
Obviously, what I consider to be “very rude” and what you consider to be “very rude” are entirely different kettles of fish.
I hope you can understand this in the spirit in which it is intended - which is merely to point out that you probably have little idea that the vast majority of people on the planet would find your religious compulsion to convert them to christianity, to be “very rude” indeed.
January 7th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
I probably shouldn’t encourage your behavior by responding to it, but I would like to clarify that when I say Christians should baptize the nations I am not in any way talking about forceful conversion, at all. I believe Christianity is true, therefore I do what I can to inform others about it. The Muslims too should do what they PEACEFULLY can to spread Islam, I have no problem with that. So too should Buddhists, so too should Hindus, and indeed, so too should atheists. May the truth win the hearts and minds of humanity.
If you believe something is true, you should tell others about it. This is not at all different than what atheists are doing.
Part of the problem in Europe (and increasingly in the US) is that there has been a gutting of this concept of “truth”, rendering most dialog either viciously partisan or exasperatingly pointless.
[Tangent: I do understand the “spirit” in which you intend your comments. You picked one of my statements and you’re reading violence and “Dominionism” into it so you can make a presumptive, tangential and pedantic non-point about me being “very rude.” On a blog like this, we need to have ONE discussion at a time if at all possible. This thread is about the direction of faith in Europe and the West. Do you have thoughts about that? If you would like to talk more about “very rude”, and if you insist on doing so in public, perhaps soulster or drunkentune can start a thread about what is or is not rude to say when talking about someone’s faith.]
January 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
ben,
Three points:
1. How do you categorize religions into ‘rational’ and ‘pre-rational’?
2. Atheism is not a religion.
3. Has there ever been a self-identified member of the ‘Religious Left’ that has gone on national television, written an Op-Ed, or attended a religious conference and said a disaster was God’s will? Have The Center For Progressive Christianity and The Christian Alliance For Progress said that 9/11 was God’s will? There could be members of the Religious Left that have said so, which would make my low estimation of at least 20% of Americans believing God is responsible for disasters seem paltry.
The ‘Religious Right’ I refer to is the famous collection of individuals and organizations, such as Pat Robertson (a Southern Baptist) of CBN and the 700 Club, James Dobson (an Evangelical Christian) of Focus on the Family, Jerry Falwell (a Baptist) of the dissolved Moral Majority, Billy Graham of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
Falwell: ‘AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals.’ Or, God caused AIDS.
Robertson: ‘I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city.’ Or, God will destroy a town. [here]
Billy Graham: ‘Is AIDS a judgment of God? I could not say for sure, but I think so.’ Or, God is likely to have caused AIDS.
Donohue: ‘In one strange sense, then, what’s happening to these poor Asian people is their gift to the world.’ Or, Bill Donohue is crazy. [here]
Repent America director Michael Marcavage: ‘Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city… May this act of God cause us all to think about what we tolerate in our city limits, and bring us trembling before the throne of Almighty God.’ Or, God caused hurricane Katrina.
Charles Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship International: ‘Did God have anything to do with Katrina?, people ask. My answer is, he allowed it and perhaps he allowed it to get our attention so that we don’t delude ourselves into thinking that all we have to do is put things back the way they were and life will be normal again.’ Or, God caused hurricane Katrina. [here]
January 7th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
For what it’s worth I was part of an archaeological tour of Egypt last year (which is 95% Muslim and 5% Christian, mostly Coptic) and through our Egyptian guide I learned many things about his culture as well as Islam. Egypt has a law against any religious proselytizing, including Islam. Muslims believe that you should come to allah of your own free choice. It’s too bad all religions don’t follow that rule. Sure, they have their minority religious extremists who blow themselves up (as well as innocent bystanders) on occasion but the government tries to nip these groups in the bud before they spread by severe and swift punishment. On the whole though, Egypt is probably the most tolerant Arab speaking country. They have learned to overlook some of our Western practices for the American dollars that are spent in their country.
January 7th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I like the idea of bridging the gap between people groups and the fact that you (Soulster) take this issue to heart and want to see more unity amongst the people - I think some basic rules need to be followed so we of all faiths can learn to co-exist and respect one another.
To be honest, I really enjoy Ben’s train of thought and some of the questions he poses - namely the idea of faith in these broken countries and the loss of faith in these not-harmed countries…I found that bit of info really amazing. I guess faith is more real to the broken than it is to the un-harmed - maybe we ‘the un-harmed’ see no need for a God since we have it so plush? Who knows really, but I have noticed this trend in Canada also.
But I see no problem of us all co-existing one with another respecting each other’s right to ‘be’. If I had rules to make I think I would follow the first 4 mentioned by the missionary as a great ‘rule of thumb’ but I really only still need one and then expand upon it - ‘treat others how you want to be treated’ - and most of us are know we want the best for our respective lives anyways. If I can live like that - the true intent of that saying - then no one around me should ever have a problem with relating with me and vice versa - since respect will be the highest value.
I personally have no care if someone denies God or any of the facets of what I believe - I have to live with myself in the end of the day - so I take accountabilty and responsibility for how I treat others - knowing I would like to be treated a certain way - namely with friendship. You just can’t go wrong if this ideal is practiced correctly, shoving judgment aside, and caring about the other with whom you make some spiritual connection daily.
January 7th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
While we’re talking about statistics, I remembered this bit on science education in the U.S.
January 7th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
RE ben
“I probably shouldn’t encourage your behavior by responding to it, but I would like to clarify that when I say Christians should baptize the nations I am not in any way talking about forceful conversion, at all.”
My behaviour? Are you referencing my behaviour as being somehow inappropriate? And if it is inappropriate, by what standard? I would suggest that perhaps you have the idea that religious beliefs, unlike every other belief on the planet, should be respected regardless of how silly or inappropriate I might think they are.
None of us are asked to treat any other belief system with kid gloves, except for religious faith. As if religious faith has some sort of exclusionary right from criticism. (Which, of course, for centuries, it did - and still does in many parts of the world.) Heresy and blasphemy laws made sure that people weren’t too vocal about their lack of belief.)
RE: “I am not in any way talking about forceful conversion, at all.”
Kind of depends on what you consider “force” to be. In the same way it depends on what you consider “very rude” to be. Conversions to christianity have been throughout history a combination of violence and the “carrot and the stick.”
The violence sometimes comes first, followed by the “carrot and the stick” principle.
In the carrot and stick style of conversions large groups of poor people in other countries are encouraged to accept christianity by using the carrot of charity and aid as a method of persuasion.
So, this might not be a case of violence, but I would put it in the area of “forceful persuasion.”
The muslims have also used both methods, though as an opposing religious ideology most of us in the west pay more attention to their methods of violence and less to our kind, as, after all, they are not the one TRUE faith and we are. (cough)
RE: “If you believe something is true, you should tell others about it. This is not at all different than what atheists are doing.”
There is no recommendation nor compulsion with any other ideology, except religion, to spread it either by force or persuasion just because you consider it to be true.
No political ideology comes with the expressed statement that we must spread this doctrine or concept because we believe it is true. Only some religions come with that as part of their written ideology.
There are, of course, all sorts of political and cultural ideologies which nations and governments decide to spread because they believe they are true. But nothing is written in the definitions of those ideologies which requires that the believers spread “the good word” about communism, capitalism, liberalism or conservatism. (Neo-conservatism, on the other hand, does have as part of its ideology the doctrine of expansionism. And it appears to be a heady mix of conservative political capitalist belief and religious belief. A similar paradigm exists with politically motivated islamic extremists.)
This is distinct from some religious ideologies where they are directed according to the tenets of their religious faith, to spread their doctrine to the far corners of the globe.
Religious faith is non-negotiable. It asserts and demands that faith is the ultimate expression of knowledge. Whereas I see faith as something people continue to act upon regardless of whether it is true or false.
Religious faith is what allows islamic extremists to fly planes into buildings. Religious faith is what allows soldiers to hum “Onward christians soldiers” as they use a rocket launcher or drive a tank. Religious faith is what allows people to harrass populations so that they comply with their religious worldview.
Faith is the practice of continuing behaviours whether they can ever be evidenced as true or not.
RE: “This is not at all different than what atheists are doing.”
Atheists are not compelled according to any “doctrine of atheism” to do anything in regards to their non-belief in gods as there is NO doctrine that compels or persuades atheists to confront or persuade anyone.
If an atheist speaks to other people about their lack of belief, it is the individual’s desire to do so. They are NOT instructed according to dogma or doctrine to do so.
On the other hand, some religious adherents, (primarily christians and muslims), ARE instructed by doctrine or dogma to proselytise, evangelize or convert.
In fact, they may even be considered lacking as believers if they are not good salespeople for their religion.
RE: “This thread is about the direction of faith in Europe and the West.”
Well, I think my comments have been relevant to the direction of faith in europe and the west. The style of modern christianity is well suited to the economic model. This is why I suggest that the ideology of selling religion to the rest of the world, as instructed in the doctrine of christianity, has found so much favour in capitalist countries.
To me, it’s just another potentially lucrative product, - an insurance policy, if you like, for dead people. Which I consider to be one of the most magnificent scams ever dreamt of on the face of the planet. “Pay now, collect when you are dead.”
Now, no doubt, I will be chastised for “my behaviour” as apparently there is a standard of behaviour which is required when addressing religious topics which is NOT required when discussing any other ideology.
I can say that communism is a source of evil on the planet and not hear a peep from the majority of christians. I can say that islam is a source of evil on the planet and not hear a peep from most christians as well.
But if I said that religion is a source of evil, all of a sudden, one’s “behaviour” may be called into question. When did this double standard occur?
I can liken islam to the primitive, superstitious beliefs of ancient tribes people who were convinced by demonic forces to create a false religion, and nary a peep from the majority of believers in the west. (Not that I believe in demonic supernatural forces, but large %s of the population do.) But, if I suggested that christianity is a blood cult based on the ancient worship of a minor sumerian war god, “my behaviour” would most likely be called into question.
Religious faith or belief should not be afforded a revered position any more than any other belief system should be afforded a revered position.
I do not have to respect anyone’s beliefs, I do, however respect the indiviual’s right to have beliefs.
As an atheist, who doesn’t have a religious dog in the fight, watching the confrontation between christianity and islam is like watching the Lilliputians and the Brobdingnags (from Gulliver’s Travels), arguing and going to war concerning from which end they should open the “invisible egg.”
The Lilliputians have faith that the only way that the “invisible egg” can be opened is by opening it at the pointy end and the Brobdingnags have an equal amount of non-negotiable faith that the “invisible egg” can only be opened at the non-pointy end.
Each ones indominable and non-negotiable faith encourages their adherents to believe that no matter what happens, that their fight is a just and noble battle against evil. And that the other side must be inherently evil, or at the least, “very rude” for suggesting otherwise. This faith mentality is what allows each side to continue behaviours which are potentially damaging or at least non-productive, to anyone else who doesn’t share their non-negotiable faith.
The non-believers, on the otherhand, are sitting around scratching their heads and saying - “Excuse me, but what makes you so convinced that there is an invisible egg in the first place.?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulliver’s_Travels
January 7th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
beepbeep,
Woah. As one atheist to another, you might want to tone down the agressiveness. I agree with your points, but both of us don’t want a fighting match. Honey, coupled with damnable facts, wins out over vinegar every time.
And what’s with spelling everything with a ‘ou’ instead of ‘o’ like normal people? Aussies and the English are just craaaazy!
January 8th, 2007 at 12:15 am
This thread was mostly tangent, which is usually pointless, but now it’s tangent and rant, which is pointless AND boring.
Time for a new post? I hope in the next post we can all really try to stay on topic as much as possible. I still haven’t given up hope on this blog as a place to discuss ideas in a logical and civil manner.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Oops, just saw that you posted “Buy Now.”
January 8th, 2007 at 1:02 am
See, I don’t understand how that post could be considered a rant, or largely controversial at all.
I didn’t feel like I was ranting when I wrote it. Nor did I feel that I was being very rude when I wrote it.
It is not at all controversial to me. What I consider controversial is the concept that there is at least one invisible, incorporeal being whose home is somewhere in the sky and who keeps lists to see whether we have been naughty or nice.
(Ooops, I probably did it again.) Obviously, I am not adept at addressing people of religious faith.
Re: drunken
Come the revolution, the whole world will be spelling “behaviour” with a “u”. My “etymological faith” demands it. And I have a book to prove that what I say is absolutely correct. May I present, the English Oxford dictionary.
January 8th, 2007 at 1:18 am
ben:
Perhaps I am not very well informed, as you suggest, and am simply taking joy at the religious plight of others so my ‘fashonable new ideas’ can get a foothold in the wake. (Maybe I could sell a book to the desparate de-Christianized…hmmm.) But, if my thinking is faulty, it is more likely that I am a prejudiced post-fundamental, and wouldn’t mind some decontruction of my former institutions and cultural groups. However, I would like to think my motives are different and that I am not uninformed, though my interpretation of history is human.
I think a good arguement could be made that Christianity was the most heavily institutionalized in Europe and was so intertwined with the state, university, and local socio-politics that ‘faith’ became assumed, if not enforced, but prevailingly nominal — as many, many writers contemporary to the times lamented. The Enlightenment was a direct reaction to much of this, and the Reformation (an its following mini-movements) with it was driven by similar reactions and impulses. The systems eventually replacing the old states (of the Holy Roman Empire and its spin-offs) led to the both secularization of university, most things public, and to new ways of organizing society that lead to revolutions and a cycle of wars culminating in the World Wars. All this was reacting from and with the kind of prevalent religion in Europe, so one might say that the post-Christian Age there is what the religion of Europe and the other corresponding systems of the time created. Now this is just one way of reading history, but I would say that what is occuring there now is a much needed and long-time-coming equilibrium of sorts in which Christianity is becoming again what it should be (as in the rebirth of European theology, the idea of missional post-colonialism, the emerging church movement there, and the rediscovery of the Eastern Orthodox school that was long suppressed by Rome), while much of the culture and dominance of the old Christendom is rightly going the way of the dinosaur.
You might take as evidence the difference between religions of Western Europe and religions of Eastern Europe. In the East, Orthodoxy always felt the pressure of the near Muslim world and Asia, not to mention constant attempts at absorbtion or subversion by Rome. States in the East had less political unity under the institution of the Church. The theology remained more flexible, more inclusive, and more holistically missional. Less dominance, in my opinion, meant less error and less corruption. So in Eastern Orthodoxy, there seems to be many thousand years of a unbroken, missional faith that has stood the test of time even in the hostile environs.
One the other hand, the Western church enjoyed much more dominance, much more power to enforce dogma, much more exclusivity and isolation, and much more influence in each of the united systems of states until the fragmentation of revolution. So the theology became increasingly inflexible, the institution corrupted, missional motion non-existent, except in conquest. And that violence birthed more violence that became its undoing, whether in the failing of Roman Catholicism (as has happened in France) or the revolt of German and Swiss Protestantism.
In John 6, the crowds, which where fed on the lake shore the pervious day, come to Jesus. They say they want to know what works God requires. Jesus tells them they’ve come to fill their stomachs and he tells them the work that God requires is to believe on the One God sent. He then explains true incarnational living in which it should be the intentions of his followers to “become what they eat”, namely him. Most of the crowd is offended or confused and walk off, and only some of the core group remains. These are the people, that though they do not fully understand now, and because they are willing to remain faithful when the crowd thins, who will eventually carry on Jesus’ revolutionary movement. This is the Christ that I see who is willing to see consumerists, institutionalists, and dogmatists walk away for the sake of health, truth, and the mission. So there you have it from my Christology, which could, of course, be also uninformed.
Perhaps some more on your other points tomorrow…
January 8th, 2007 at 1:18 am
beepbeep,
And what’s with throwing ‘e’s at the end of words when they obviously belong before the ‘r’? It’s ‘theater’, not ‘theatre’! You’re all batty!
And ‘connexion’? You Aussies don’t use that, do you? Ooh, I have family in England, and they drive me mad with their silly accents. Why can’t they sound more American?
Once we’re done with Iraq, we’ll be annexing England and Australia. They’re just like Puerto Rico: mini-Americas.
January 8th, 2007 at 6:06 am
RE drunken
“And what’s with throwing ‘e’s at the end of words when they obviously belong before the ‘r’? It’s ‘theater’, not ‘theatre’! You’re all batty!”
Firstly, in my blog persona as the cheshire cat, let me inform you that “We’re all mad here.” and that the Queen of Hearts, also from Alice in wonderland is not amused.
I distinctly heard her on the croquet field screaming something about vile blasphemy and heresy, followed by - “Off with his head! Sentence first! Verdict afterwards!”
RE: “Once we’re done with Iraq, we’ll be annexing England and Australia. They’re just like Puerto Rico: mini-Americas.”
In my role as mediator I assured her majesty that the colonials couldn’t help it - as they are mostly related to convicts and low-life scum doncha know.
The Mad Hatter, on the other hand, chucked a complete wobbly (probably due to lead poisoning brought on from sniffing too many oil wells) and screamed, “Eye Rak! Gawd wants me to invade Eye Rak!” - before lapsing into a feverish fit brought on from trying to attack the side of his face with a reluctant pretzel.
January 8th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
soulster: What are you talking about with the flexibility of East-Orth vs the inflexibity of Rom-Cath? EO and RC theology is 95% the same, certainly worlds closer than Protestant/Evengelical theology and RC or EO. “Rediscovery of the EO school long suppressed by Rome”?
The dominance of the old Christendom? Christianity, or even its shell “Christendom” is hardly the dominant worldview in Europe.
Again–I’m not trying to be rude here, but really, your statements are unfounded.
As far as your statments re the John 6 fall-off, I agree that we can’t change the Gospel to suit the mood of the crowd, but do you think that it was good that they left, or sad? I don’t think Christ was thinking “Yay! Begone dead-wood!” So now look at Europe, and again I ask, in what way is it a good thing to see it de-Christianized?
January 8th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
ben:
I have no idea about the percentage of similarity in theology, but there are those who think the difference important (here, here, and here) and those who do not (here). I think the EO and RC theologians of the past have made it clear they see significant differences.
Anyway, I was refering several things the sources above would be sufficent to introduce. For example, the tendency to support an apostolic core of belief but be more philosophical, mystical, and centrist in approach in EO theology, whereas RC was more pragmatic and legalistic and more insistent in ecclesiology. All bishops in EO have equal power, whereas in the RC a formal institutional heirarchy enforces policy and theology. The EO has a tradition of councils and the concensus of the church Fathers, but none of a papal canon law system so concensus is higher that dictated legalism. The EO has for more time allowed liturgy and theology in the venacular, thus allowing greater access and more conversation with culture. There has been more of an attempt historically at unity in diversity in EO, stemming from the fundamental theological position that God is mysterious and cannot be fully known, therefore the formal doctrines should not be added to beyond the core. Likewise, the EO has more local and regional autonomy than the RC and less institution (relates to point about bishops), and it enjoyed less time and less power as state religions (see sources above, Walkers great church history, and Peterson’s concise volume, and wiki).
Of course EO and RC are closer together than Protestants. Any other assertion would be silly. Although some would agrue that mainline Protestants have more in common with the RC and EO than certain brands of Evangelicalism. Regardless, I was simply comparing how the EO and RC faired based on their relative dominance. If, in fact, they only vary by 5%, then my comparsion would be based on that historically important 5% and its influence on outcomes.
Read this here and here. The discovery of works like The Philokalia and thelogians like John Zizioulas and Dmitru Staniloae by the entire European and American theological communities is what I am talking about. And while you may disagree, the volume of literature I found in a few minutes googling sure would suggest my views are not unfounded.
Exactly. I said “much of the culture and dominance of the old Christendom is rightly going the way of the dinosaur.” That would mean it is extinct (or will soon be) and will remain only as fossilized traces. That would mean that, though it was once dominant, it is no longer dominant, which is what de-Christianzed means in Europe.
A good thing can be sad at the same time. I am not celebrating, as I’ve tried to make clear, just seeing something that may be positive in the long run. I would liken it to child birth — dangerous and painful, but able to bring new life, which is good. Death is sad, but a necessary and natural part of life, and often good. While I do not think Christ was happy at the deserting crowds for their sake, I think he knew it was good for the Gospel, the world at large, and necessary for his movement. It is my opinion that the current trends in Europe (and here if they spread) may be good because they will (or have) remove nominal faith and various diseases and will allow the re-Christianizing of portions of Europe with a stronger strain of the faith.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
soulster,
I found this other statistic shocking. 25% of Americans ‘anticipates the second coming of Jesus Christ [in 2007].’ Poll: Americans See Gloom, Doom in 2007]
January 10th, 2007 at 9:53 am
I would be very interested to learn what the mean is. I wonder how many Christians expect the Second Coming in any given year or if 2007 shows an increase? When I was younger, I was involved in some fringe groups that declared a world take-over by a Russian anti-christ every year until the end of the Cold War. Apparently these same groups have changed their perdiction to terrorists. You would think that all those people who pay bundles to support these ‘prophets’ would catch on that if you say something will happen ‘this year’ every year for a long time, you are likely to be right….eventually.