Good news from the Barna Group, a Christian polling organization:
Atheism on the Rise
For Gen Z, “atheist” is no longer a dirty word: The percentage of teens who identify as such is double that of the general population (13% vs. 6% of all adults). The proportion that identifies as Christian likewise drops from generation to generation. Three out of four Boomers are Protestant or Catholic Christians (75%), while just three in five 13- to 18-year-olds say they are some kind of Christian (59%).
This was particularly interesting…
Teens, along with young adults, are more likely than older Americans to say the problem of evil and suffering is a deal breaker for them.
…as was this:
Nearly half of teens, on par with Millennials, say “I need factual evidence to support my beliefs” (46%)—which helps to explain their uneasiness with the relationship between science and the Bible. Significantly fewer teens and young adults (28% and 25%) than Gen X and Boomers (36% and 45%) see the two as complementary.
That two fantasies are different fantasies doesn’t make them unlike each other in being, ahem, fantasies.
So, let me get that right, those absurd characteristics make this fantasy less of a fantasy? Is that the point?
GlenDavidson,
The epistemological question here would be whether there’s a deductively valid and sound a priori argument for the existence of a necessary being, and whether that being has any or all of the characteristics of the God of classical theism.
But to me, what’s actually more interesting philosophically is neither the metaphysical question (“does God exist?”) nor the epistemological question (“how could we know whether or not God exists?”) but rather the political and psychological functions of religious discourse and religious practice. I mean, there’s some literature showing that the cognitive and affective effects of prayer are similar to those of meditation. I think that’s fascinating!
Not at all. I was just pointing out that the differences between the two concepts make for a weak argument.
I think that we’d have better atheism if atheists made better arguments.
I want atheists to make good arguments. I also want theists to make good arguments.
I want everyone to make better arguments than they usually do, regardless of what position they adopt.
And I was pointing out that you’re wrong about that. These are not just concepts, they’re fantasies both.
There’s nothing wrong in stating that what looks like a fantasy, sounds like a fantasy, has absurd characteristics and stories proper of fantasies, is as much a fantasy as another fantasy. The only real difference is that most everybody knows the status of the latter fantasy, while there’s many who refuse to see that the former fantasy is also a fantasy.
That’s commendable, but I think that starting by defending a difference between “concepts” that make the fantasy more obvious (absurd characteristics) is not really the right starting point.
On that we can agree.
William,
What you did was to lay out a script, and then whine when I refused to follow it. My views are my own, William. You have no part in stating them. That’s reality, and you’re well-advised to accept it instead of fighting it.
If there’s something specific I have written that you disagree with, then quote it and we can discuss it. If you want to know more about my views, then ask questions. What you should resist is the idea that you can “wish” me into taking the position you’d like me to take, so that we can follow your predetermined script.
Take a look at the pattern. You wasted decades of your life estranged from reality, thinking that you could shape it with your “mind powers”, and spouting nonsense like the following:
You appear to have “woken up” to an extent since then, since you’ve disowned your first two books and pulled the third one from sale. Yet you’re still making a version of same error, trying to “will” me into taking the position(s) you want me to take. It isn’t working. Your “mind powers” are as impotent as ever.
You are Exhibit A for the self-defeating effects of non-reality-based thinking. Any evidence that kids are rejecting that style of thinking is good news.
But as I cautioned in the first comment on this thread:
That’s disturbingly WJM-like, and those kids are headed in the wrong direction. They’re still young, though, with plenty of opportunities to get back on track.
No, I’m not. I haven’t asserted that they are not the same. The burden of support falls upon those that make the claim or the comparison. If I was to assert that atheism was the same as nihilism, it would fall upon me to support that assertion. (And no, I’m not asserting here they are the same.)
Claiming that belief in superman and belief in God are the same kind of belief is nothing but a bald assertion; claiming that they are the same because both are imaginary is simply assuming the validity of the unsupported comparison.
Anything? Should we really doubt the many people who really wouldn’t mind being religious but who can’t find good enough reasons to do so? Reason may not be especially strong, but it’s something that often influences decisions.
Has apologetics been a complete waste, since you claim that belief or disbelief in God has nothing to do with reasoning and evidence? I think otherwise, and that the typically bad thinking of apologetics has also mattered to those who rejected it.
Well, yes, but there’s not much excuse to make it all “He said, she said.” Of course what I have a problem with is that although it seems more reasonable not to believe in a God for whom evidence is rather inadequate, there’s no evidence that merely not believing in God means that people are becoming more rational. Maybe godlessness is just becoming more fashionable, or at least more tolerated.
The problem is that people can be quite rational (and empiric) about most things, and yet quite irrational (non-empiric) about others. Compartmentalization.
Is rationality merely epiphenomenal? A host of arguments for and against God have been produced, and none of them is anything but a cover for emotional motivations and psychological needs (or if they are more, then how so?)?
And why should I believe your statement, “We believe, or not, due to emotional motivations and psychological needs,” in the first place? Why should I think that your statement (meant to be an observation, I presume) is not due to emotional motivations and psychological needs, just as you suppose that theists’ and atheists’ positions on God are?
Glen Davidson
KN,
We’ve had this discussion before, back when you were using “assertoric vs. disclosive” instead of “cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism”. You run into the same problem now as then: religions clearly and obviously make claims about reality.
To claim that religion should be seen non-cognitively is, in effect, to deny that mainstream Christianity is a religion, for example.
That’s a non-starter, for obvious reasons.
I made no such assumption. I pointed out that such a bald comparison without making any meaningful case they are the same kind of thing is simply assuming the validity of the comparison.
Can you support your assertion that God is an “unperceived” being?
Can you provide a description or argument about what constitutes a “standard of evidence”, and why it should be universally binding in considering a comparison between “God” and “Superman”?
Nobody claimed any of that, go back and read Glen posts again.
I mean, we get it, you guys believe God and your religious beliefs are special, and they may be in some way, but not in a good one
Of course you did, implicitly, since you wouldn’t have written about Superman what you did about God. Actually, you did worse, you mischaracterized the issue as a matter of “believing there is no God,” certainly not the typical claim of unbelievers. But you’ll never admit your implicit assumptions.
And you were as pathetic in doing that as we’re used to you being.
Can you ever keep from asking things only because they’re tendentious and unfair? It’s for you to show that God has been perceived, and as usual you have completely failed to do anything to support the side that requires evidence.
Go look up standards of evidence. The disingenuous questions that you throw out are disgusting. One starts with an understanding of the “standards of evidence” if one is honestly joining a discussion such as this, while you ask “questions” that are designed only to send one scrambling to make up for your lack of knowledge.
Glen Davidson
Actually, he did read my posts well enough to try to shift the burden of evidence onto the one noting the imperceptibility of God. Which he has no excuse not to know rests on the lack of requested sound evidence for perception of God.
All too typical.
Glen Davidson
What I find most interesting is that in two threads now, when challenged, those who claim that “more atheists, less theists” is a good thing, nobody has yet been able to provide any empirical evidence whatsoever that supports that belief in terms of any measurable “good”, either directly claimed or implied.
It seems to me this implies that the belief “more atheists = good” is the same kind of belief they accuse theists of – meaning: having a belief that is not based on any kind of empirical evidence whatsoever.
Not quite. Rather, I’m saying that the vast majority of religious believers are deeply confused about what religious belief is.
But I don’t think that religion is unique in that regard. Lots of people support capitalism but are deeply confused about what capitalism is and how it works, too. My students mostly accept the results of science but do so without questioning how scientific practices actually work and what gives them the epistemic authority that they have.
I’m perfectly happy to say that people who think that their religious discourse is functioning assertorically when it is really functioning disclosively are just mistaken about the function of their own language. But why should that be a surprise? Language isn’t transparent to consciousness!
Yes, now you are getting it. None of it really matters given there’s no such thing as objective morality nor heaven nor hell.
But from my current, ephemeral, point of view, it is good.
The claim relies on a few suppressed premises, which need some support.
1. Generally speaking, it is better for beliefs to be based on evidence than not.
2. So, the more people who base their beliefs on evidence, the better.
3. There is little to no evidence for theism.
4. It is better for people to be atheists than to be theists.
5. If someone rejects theism in favor of atheism, it is due to recognizing that there is little to no evidence for theism.
6. So, the fact that the rate of atheism among Generation Z has gone up, relative to previous generations, indicates that there’s more respect for evidence in Generation Z than previous generations.
7. Thus, it is good that the rate of atheism in Generation Z has gone up.
dazz,
All I see is assertions from you Walto and Entropy. Is there an argument based on anything other then the natural world is all there is to reality despite its predictable nature and containing observers that can comprehend its existence as a result of consciousness. Your claim is all that happened without a cause?
I basically agree. I mean, somebody COULD just be a religious type: you know, get comfort out of going to church or from a sort of non-petitionary “praying” or other rituals. But the question here was about theists. By definition, they believe in something.
Nice attempt at a burden shift there, but as Glen pointed out, if you think there’s some kind of (invisible) God, then, it’s you who have the job to do, just as if you were claiming that Green Lantern exists.
I think I’d move 4 to between 6 and 7.
25 Most Atheist Countries in the World
I’ll go collect some evidence there, you can go to the most theistic countries. If you come back alive I’d say you may have a point
For once we sort of agree. Most of the answers to the problem of evil in church circles is pretty sorry from a logic standpoint. The logical answer is mostly revolting to the average person, even thought it is a correct answer since it suggests a God that isn’t so nice and meets our conception of God that is like Santa Claus rather than the God of the Old Testament.
Thanks for posting this. Good news for your side, yes, but it’s something that doesn’t surprise me. I saw it coming. What you said is indeed the deal breaker, and the average Christian, imho, has lousy answers to that problem.
Here was my take:
http://www.creationevolutionuniversity.com/insight/?p=86
KN,
That’s condescending and obviously false. Believers know what they believe, and many of them will tell you if you ask.
Most Christians, for instance, believe in an actual triune God out there in actual reality. They furthermore believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the actual earthly manifestation of this actual triune God, that he was actually raised from the dead, and that he actually lives today — in reality.
Their beliefs are claims about reality, whether you like that or not.
There are certainly aspects of religiosity that are non-cognitive, but to classify religion as a whole as non-cognitive is just silly.
I must confess it baffles me that people as intelligent and literate as VJ Torley can believe some of the ridiculous stuff in the bible, let alone levitating priests and virgin apparitions
Sal,
It’s good that you acknowledge the depth of the problem of evil, but how do you reconcile that with Bible passages such as the following?
Is God hate, also?
Folks from my tradition would probably say that if mainline religious belief is declining that folks were just trading one form of irrationality for another one.
Meet the new boss same as the old boss.
I would say that the decline of mainline religious belief in America is good news but for far different reasons that the atheists here would.
Mainline christianity is one of the biggest hindrances to the spread of the gospel in the world today. I say good riddance.
quote:
“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.
(Rev 3:15-17)
end quote:
on the other hand
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/13/nones-americans-christians-evangelicals-column/27198423/
peace
God is not invisible those who deny him are just (willfully) blind.
peace
I suggest you start with premise number one. starting at the beginning for convenience sake.
Why given your worldview is it better for beliefs to be based on evidence than not?
Why is it not better for beliefs to be conducive to the passing on of genes regardless of their relationship to evidence?
Please be specific in your supporting arguments.
peace
keiths,
They know what they believe, but that doesn’t mean that they know what what they believe does. Content is one thing, function another.
dazz,
The good news is that Vincent now rejects large swaths of the Bible. For example, he now denies that many of the more grotesque laws of the Old Testament come from God himself, though the text clearly states that they do.
I have high hopes for Vincent. He’s a boiling cauldron of cognitive dissonance, and that might just save him in the long run.
Hi keiths,
A few very quick comments:
1. The biggest religious divide is between the Boomers (80% of whom are people of faith – i.e. Protestant + Catholic + other faiths) and Generation X (only 70%). For Generation Z, it’s 66%: not much of a drop. Interestingly, most of the drop from Millennials (70%) to Generation Z (66%) appears to have taken place among Catholics, the proportion of whom has fallen from 21 to 17%.
2. Personally, I think the differences in belief between self-declared atheists, agnostics and none of the above probably don’t amount to much: it’s all a matter of brand labels, and in recent years, atheism has become a cool brand. That’s why I think it’s more meaningful to look at people of faith vs. people of no faith.
3. If you look at the proportion of people echoing anti-religious sentiments among different age groups, it’s actually slightly higher among Millennials than among Generation Z: 30% of Millennials are worried about how God could allow evil in the world, vs. 29% of Generation Z. The same goes for the statements about Christians being hypocrites and science refuting the Bible: the Millennials are the most hostile. That suggests to me that peak atheism has probably passed.
walto,
You’re reasoning is circular as you are making the claim that there is no competing position. Do you really think asking you to support your argument is a burden shift? I am not making an invisible God claim.
KN,
They know what they believe, and their beliefs are about aspects of actual reality. That settles it. Those beliefs are not “non-cognitive”.
Entropy,
Walto is making the same claim. If you have to put 100% of the burden of proof on your opponent, and claim you have the only logical argument, and you represent 20% of the global population, I think it is time to take a fresh look at your world view.
Oh come on, that’s a cop out Walto. Your side doesn’t get to avoid putting up an argument because you claim there is nothing.
The EXISTENCE of an organized world with conscious beings able to understand that world IS the evidence. You don’t get to say, “Well, I claim it is caused from nothing, prove me wrong” and then say your burden is satisfied.
AMEN!!!!!
That one needs to be in bold letters just under the logo here.
It would be a great reminder of what real skepticism should look like.
peace
Assertions? I’d call them invitations to think.
As I said, it’s believers in magical beings who need to support their beliefs, not those who reject the notion.
Why do you think that nature shouldn’t be “predictable”? Why do you think that it shoudn’t contain observers that can comprehend its existence?
What part? The “predictability”? The very concept of “cause” implies “predictability.” So you’re suggesting that at some point things should start with a “cause,” but within some reality that doesn’t even allow for “causes” in the first place, so some being comes and rearranges that reality, that’s not rearrange-able in the first pace, because it’s not “predictable.”
Then again, you’re also assuming that there’s something with a fundamentally “predictable” nature, aka, the magical being. So some nature, at least this being’s nature, is “predictable,” but nature itself cannot possibly be. Why not? Just because you believe so. Who cares about the absurdity and contradictions, as long as it sounds as if your invisible absurd being must exist to make things right?
Creationists make these kinds of absurd assumptions, and never stop to think about their implications. Not only that, they think that everybody has those very same assumptions. Well, sorry. I have thought that far, and I reject those assumptions. They just don’t make sense.
The idea that it’s my opponent who is the one who is responsible for demonstrating that my beliefs are incorrect is an anathema to genuine skepticism.
The faux skepticism that one often encounters here would look something like this
“I beseech you, in the bowels of yourself, confidently assume your position is correct until your opponent presents evidence you deem to be sufficient that you may be mistaken.”
peace
How about I say I am not sure how the world came about but since you say you know ,please show the evidence that convinced you.
For much of the existence of the Earth there were no conscious beings able or interested in understanding the world. Was that evidence against the existence of a deity?
What percentage are Calvinists, more or less than 20%?
I guarantee I don’t unilaterally declare that my arminian friends have the burden of proof or that their position is not rational and I certainly don’t hold off examining my worldview until those who don’t hold it provide sufficient evidence that I might be mistaken.
peace
You can be funny.
Glen Davidson
I never understand what you mean by “given my worldview”. Do I have a worldview? I don’t know. I don’t think I do. I don’t know what it would be. I mean, there are lots of things I believe are true, and some of those beliefs hang together in some rough shape. But I think that my beliefs are really too eclectic and patchwork to count as a worldview, whatever that means.
Anyway: I think that it’s better for empirical beliefs to be based on evidence when relevant and revised accordingly because we should have justifications for our beliefs, and evidence is the right sort of justification for empirical beliefs.
We want and should want justified beliefs because justifications play a central role in argument, where we aim at persuasion according to shared norms of reasoning. And that means we are answerable for our beliefs.
In the final analysis, reasoning (argument, justification, explanation, etc.) is the only mechanism we’ve got for generating social cooperation without resorting to coercion or threats of coercion.
While it just barely possible for someone’s beliefs can play a role in how their genes are passed on, no one chooses his or her beliefs for that reason, and no one can be answerable to others.
If someone says, “why do you believe X?” and the other person says, “because doing so increases the likelihood that my genes will be passed on,” the first person would say, “that’s not a reason!” — and they would be right.
Depends on what you mean by Calvinist. I was a Calvinist long before I heard the term or knew who john Calvin was.
Most of the folks who I hang with would not call themselves Calvinist per say but most would more or less agree that God is sovereign and we are saved by his Grace alone.
peace
The existence of an organized world with conscious beings is the fact to be explained by an adequate metaphysical system. It is not itself evidence for or against any specific metaphysical system.
why should we have justifications for our beliefs given your worldview. Why is it not better to simply have beliefs that are conducive to passing on your genes.
Perhaps you would prefer I say “given your point of view” You do have a point of view don’t you? Your point of view is different than mine is it not?
Why is resorting to coercion or threats of coercion bad given your worldview?
It seems like it might be a good way to insure passing on your genes in some situations. It would certainly at times be easier than looking for supporting evidence for your beliefs
peace
FMM (A.K.A. there’s-an-infinite-regress-cuz-I-can-keep-asking-how-do-you-know-until-you-answer-sweet-baby-jeebus) represents the epitome of religious retardness.
I would vehemently disagree.
It’s Prima facie evidence against any metaphysical system that does not lead you to expect the existence of an organized world with conscious beings.
peace
KN said:
We’re not talking about general beliefs, though. It may be the case that a belief not based on evidence produces more good than a belief to the contrary that is based on evidence. So, making a case from “general beliefs” for atheism in particular is insufficient.
Beliefs based on evidence can still be wrong, and may be turn out to be “more wrong” than a belief based on faith, and may cause more harm. So, one would have to very carefully describe what they mean by “good”, and then show causation from atheism to that increase in good.
I really don’t think anyone here can do that because I don’t think their idea that atheism generates more good is a rational one, nor do I think it is based on the kind of evidence they usually insist upon. I think it’s really mostly emotion – based tribalism – meaning, at the root: “more of us = good”.
Edited to add: Additionally, they’d have to unpack what “better” or “good” means.