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.
Entropy,
Deliver an argument and let the thinking begin 😉
The believers in magical events should join the party.
On its own there is no cause of that predictability. Everything inside our space time has a cause. Atoms exist inside our spacetime.
I need some clarification on the point you are trying to make.
Or inductive reasoning that ends up concluding an intelligent cause to the universe.
William J. Murray,
If we can’t agree that it is better for beliefs to be justified than not, then we have no basis for any discussion at all and we should retreat into our separate corners.
With respect to empirical beliefs, the more evidence that the belief is based on, the easier it is to justify to more different people — assuming that the evidentiary basis is widely accepted, though with the rise of social media in constructing epistemic bubbles, such a basis can hardly be taken for granted.
(In my darker moments I worry that the ultimate impact of social media on our culture will be the demise of rational agreement as a tool of collective decision-making. Perhaps the Internet will destroy democracy after all.)
The question that no one is asking here is, why are Millennials and Generation Z people rejecting theism? The sheer fact that they are doing so is no evidence that they are doing for reasons, let alone good reasons. If they are rejecting organized religion for bad reasons, then it’s hardly a good thing that they are doing so. If it should out that they are rejecting organized religion because they are suspicious of the very idea of objective reality, that’s a catastrophe!
Kantian Naturalist,
Both a man face down on the floor with a knife in the middle of his back are evidence of what may be a murder. Eye witness evidence of someone with blood on his hands running from the room may point to a SPECIFIC murderer.
Evidence is by definition the facts that need to be explained. Organization is one fact. Conscious beings are another. Historical evidence may be another.
It is if the specific metaphysical system (MFS) fits the evidence. It is also (against) if the specific MFS proposed is contradicted by the evidence.
I think I could agree that it’s better for beliefs to be justified, what I don’t understand is why someone with your perspective would think that it’s better for beliefs to be justified.
I would assume that you would think it’s better for beliefs to lead to increased genetic progeny. I’m curious why it’s important for someone with your perspective that we not just retreat into our separate corners.
Discussion does not seem to be uniquely necessary to your potential evolutionary success. Other strategies might be more conducive to that end depending on the situation.
Why? Why is it important for someone with your perspective that younger folks not be suspicious of objective reality?
I would think that the only thing that would matter to you is that the people who shared your genes had lots of children?
peace
Right, so Bill did exactly that, he explained the evidence.
Neil loves your post. Two thumbs up!
An argument for what? I explained to you the fundamentally absurd nature of your assumptions about “predictability,” and “conscious beings.” Yet you jumped that over. What about you try and read that again, try and understand it, then ask for clarifications where needed?
You’re the one who believes in magical events, so go on.
Of course not. “Predictability” is fundamental. It needs no explanation. Attempting to question it leads to absurdity, yet that’s exactly what you do to try and put your imaginary friend in charge.
I doubt it. It all depends on what you might be calling “everything” and “cause.”
You’re saying that there must be a “cause” for the “predictability” of nature. I explained that “cause” assumes predictability in the first place. There can be no such thing as “cause” unless there’s “predictability” first. So asking for a “cause” for “predictability” is absurd.
Then you contradict yourself by saying that the “cause” for “predictability” is an “intelligence.” But the existence of an “intelligence” implies that there’s already “predictability.” Thus, you’re actually agreeing with me that “predictability” is fundamental, and thus your proposed “intelligence” doesn’t solve anything. It’s just rhetorical maneuvers.
By holding to absurd requests, like asking for a “cause” for “predictability.” By holding to absurdities such as pretending that intelligence could exist without everything that makes intelligence possible. By holding to absurdities like an intelligence that doesn’t make sense, since the supposed intelligence doesn’t have any problems to solve.
Then by hasty generalizations and extrapolations to concepts such as cause/effect. By ignoring the appropriate use and limited scope of those concepts, etc. Poor philosophy, and then poorly applied outdated philosophy, through and through.
Of course since you are a theist the burden of proof is on you to establish that tribalism is not in fact the highest good. 😉
peace
Bill didn’t explain any evidence. He only claimed that such things were evidence. He also failed to think of the hidden, and absurd, assumptions he was making by presenting that as evidence.
Your assumption is that we agree on what “justified” and “better” means. Justified how? “Better” – meaning what?
Evidence is not the facts to be explained. Evidence is the facts that support or contradict an explanation.
1. Not every question is sensical.
2. not every sensical question has an answer.
3. Lack of answers is not evidence for magical absurd beings.
People can make up metaphysical systems to fit whatever they want. From open questions, to giving “answers” to absurd questions. This means that “fitting” is not evidence of the quality of a metaphysical system.
It wouldn’t be if I’d been ‘making an argument.’
You say ‘Green Lantern really exists!’ I say, ‘No kidding? Really? That’s incredible! How do you know it?’ I haven’t ‘made an argument.’ It’s your burden, and I’m simply not letting you shift it. If you think regularity or consciousness, or pretty things, or the human eye, or the existence of pieces of toast with the image of the BVM on it are evidence for the Green Lantern, I don’t stop you from going ahead and trying to make your case. But it is your case to make, not mine. Until you do so, I have no obligation whatever to ‘make an argument.’
Theists love to try the big burden shift, as your post and phoodoo’s here (and nearly every post of FMM’s anywhere) show. But it’s patently ridiculous.
That only shows the depth of your inability to understand me.
So less than 20%?
peace
Not sure what an arminian is, but you don’t feel some religions are not rational?
How could you be mistaken if God Himself reveals what is true? Why would you question Your version of God when it comes directly from God? Might have to call bullshit on that.
Here’s some original research – I used a Fisher-Pry adoption diffusion model to see what the religious landscape of the US might look like in the future. I estimate majority irreligious by 2041. If anyone who isn’t a dodgy stalker type wants the XL I’m happy to share.
Tangential, but fascinating. Check out South Carolina, Arizona and Delaware!
KN,
Speak for yourself. I am asking exactly that question, and so are the pollsters. That’s why I highlighted these three excerpts:
And:
And:
fifth:
Glen:
So can Bill:
Vincent,
The fact that “atheism has become a cool brand”, at least in some circles, is itself hugely significant. A sea change. I don’t know about Australia, but that was unimaginable in the US of my youth.
Also, there’s evidence that atheism is hugely underreported. Did you see this thread from last year?
Vincent,
I think you’re reading way too much into a small difference. You’re also forgetting that these groups are being sampled at different stages of their lives. The Gen Z folks in Barna’s survey are only 13 to 18 years old!
Your implicit argument is that you don’t need God. It’s present in every single post you make.
You start from that dubious position and never once defend it. It’s taken as a given. In fact it taken as only rational place to begin.
You then demand that someone else demonstrate that your starting position is untenable and you demand that they do that while starting from the same position.
Just once I like you to take a skeptical stance when looking at your own position.
peace
I estimate that the US is majority anti God right now. Then again I would guess that the world has always been like that.
Perhaps some folks will call themselves something different in 2041 but I would not expect much else to change.
Given that atheism is unlikely to be passed down to the next generation I would not expect the name they call themselves will be irreligious
check it out
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/28/5659984/only-30-percent-of-kids-raised-as-atheists-stay-that-way-as-adults
peace
an arminian is a Christian who does not hold to the five points of Calvinism.
Not exactly.
I tentatively hold that worldviews that reject the Christian God contain internal contradictions at some point or are not comprehensive enough to function sufficiently as a worldview. That is not the same thing as being irrational. The internal contradiction might not be at a conscious level at all.
peace
For one thing knowledge might be impossible or nontransferable or truth could not not exist.
I can think of other ways as well that I might be mistaken.
I think you have a jacked up idea about what revelation is and what I believe.
Revelation does not have to be direct and it does not have to be God who reveals.
peace
Of course. I do the same thing with flying spaghetti monsters and fountains of youth. That’s how this works. If you think there has to be any of them, it’s your burden to make a case. We don’t start with the silly stuff. And you don’t get to pick your favorite of the silly things as a launchpad.
What are the requirements needed to function as a worldview?
Yes, but since you have observed that you and everybody else knows God exists ,knowledge must exist . Are you saying you may be wrong that everyone knows God exists?
That is why I keep trying to understand your position.on One hand ,you know God exists not thru argument but thru God’s omnipotent ability to make you know stuff, I assume.
Now it seems if the right evidence is presented it could make you change your worldview. That sounds like belief based on an argument.
Right but it can be. I would assume the basis of a worldview would prioritize direct divine revelation. What possible evidence could override divine knowledge? Now if we weren’t talking about theism / atheism what you consider a worldview could encompass other more mundane stuff , is that my confusion? You sort of changed the topic?
peace
Starting without unwarranted assumptions? Not something FMM can imagine.
How about we make it up to you? If you’re charged with a crime, we’ll assume that you’re guilty until you can prove your innocence.
Of course the skeptical position is not an argument, it’s just not credulous belief in unsubstantiated claims.
Glen Davidson
Except that FMM’s entire position is that if we don’t start with his favorite of the silly things as a launchpad, no one can know anything else. Starting with the silly stuff is what presuppositionalism is all about.
Except that you’re not entitled to hold this, because you’ve never demonstrated any such internal contradictions or failure of comprehension. If you insist on saying that non-Christian worldviews are either internally contradictory or aren’t genuinely comprehensive, than that burden is on you to make the case. Otherwise it’s just one more assumption without any argument to back it up and should be entirely dismissed by those of us who actually do care about reasoning well.
Why do you keep pretending that Bill didn’t give you evidence?
Maybe one day you and Bill will learn what evidence means. Not holding my breath though
Kantian Naturalist Oh, I understand that’s his game. It needs to be resisted at the outset or burden tennis goes on forever.
“Wisdom is vindicated by its results.”
Will more secular, atheistic society bring better results than the society dominated by faith in Supernatural?
What has the not so recent history shown? What have been the results of atheism driven Communist societies?
How did the so-called alternative lifestyles and same sex families fare in such societies? What would happen to those who would oppose the atheism dominated society? Jails wouldn’t fit them all… sending some of them to Siberia wouldn’t solve the issue… Disposing of the unwanted by the society would be the alternative, just like Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and many other dictators did…
But this time would be different… The history shows it can be different…. There is solid proof that when one ideology is enforce, nothing but justice, contentment and happiness of the great majority prevails… We have seen it before many times… So, let’s remain optimistic and ignore the past history… After all we are more experienced now… Let’ try it again. History has shown that secular society can function; when the minority dominated the majority…
We don’t know why God would permit evil among creatures that can choose to do evil or good, so that proves that God doesn’t exist… This very fact is the best evidence for the origins of the uncaused universe out of nothing, origins of life without ID, and evolution that cannot be replicated… Applause!
Who needs better proof that a secular society with its solid fundamentals proven by science, such lack of purpose and meaning of human endeavours can succeed?
After all we have learned from our minor shortcoming in the past. The majority of comments and this OP are the living proof that we have…
Yes. We have learned nothing…
I’m not pretending anything. If Bill wants whatever he posted to be construed as an argument for the existence of God, I’m happy to assess it. What I won’t do is accept the absurd view that I have some burden to prove there’s no God simply because somebody has hollered the word ‘God’ (or ‘Superman’) for all to hear. If anybody has a compelling argument for the existence of God, they’re free to bring it.
And if you’re convinced by Bill’s mention of regularity or whatever it was and you’d like to paraphrase it into an argument, I’ll be glad to tell you whether I think it has any promise.
Just don’t ‘pretend’ that this isn’t the theist’s burden. I won’t play that game. It’s absurd.
You are the one playing burden tennis Walto. It seems you are almost being intentionally disingenuous. Bill gave you two very valid observations of evidence for an intelligence behind the universe, and your only reply was, I don’t have to reply to that, you just have to keep giving even more.
walto,
So you have no explanation for origins like matter, life, life’s diversity etc. Your answer is simply it is beyond my comprehension? Do you also claim that these origins are unknowable to humans?
Entropy,
Sure. But if your claim they are made up it is your burden to prove that. Just working within Walto’s rules 🙂
When you use the words like magical you are creating a burden for yourself and have yet to support your claims. Walto does the same thing yet he denies that he has created a burden.
Entropy,
It could be either. The discovery of a body inside a room with a knife in the middle of his/her back are facts to be explained.
Entropy,
It could be either. The discovery of a body inside a room with a knife in the middle of his/her back are facts to be explained and are evidence of a murder.
Entropy,
Then would you say that predictability is an assumption you make that is fundamental to your arguments?
By making this assumption you now have a burden to support that this assumption is valid. By doing this you now pick up Walto’s assumption that the physical universe is a all there is.
Walto is making the assumption that the current universe is all there is because he claims he has no burden to explain it. There is no free lunch here if you play by the rules.
We know that the universe as it is contains systems that have a capacity for self-organization. (I’ve long maintained that complexity theory is the best competitor to design theory.) We have compelling reasons for thinking that life and intelligence are self-organizing systems.
The question could be put as, “is the existence of self-organizing systems in the universe a compelling reason to believe that the universe is the result of some intelligent being?”
In those terms, it seems to me that the answer must be “no”. That is because we (and our closest nonhuman kin) are the best examples we have of intelligent beings, and we don’t know how to create self-organizing systems. Thus we have no reason to believe that intelligence is required for the creation of a universe that contains such systems.
Huh? So you mean as soon as humans learn to make self-organizing systems, THEN you will assume God exists?
I don’t think that’s a good line of reasoning. Whether an intelligence we know of CAN create self-organizing systems does not entail, nor even imply, that an intelligence of any sort is required for self-organizing systems to exist, or come into being. The fact that I can light a match and start a fire in a forest does not entail or imply that I (or other humans, or designers of any sort) are required to start fires in forests.
One need only respond to creationist claims, that the claim that self-organizing systems require a designer and creator has not met it’s burden of proof.
Kantian Naturalist,
What compelling reasons? Can you make the case that cells are self organizing? Our only observation is that they exist.
Is artificial intelligence a self organizing system? Are automated manufacturing lines self organizing systems?
I haven’t said any of those things. What I did say was that if you believe in God, it’s your burden. Period. All the rest of the bullshit in your post about what I find unknowable is neither here nor there. What I know or don’t know has no relevance whatever.
You need to focus, rather than blather. If you have an argument for God to make and you’d like anybody to comment on it, feel free.
phoodoo,
Can you spot the burden(s) that Entropy has taken on with this statement?
And reproduce
I have made no such assumption. I have said only that those who believe in Green Lantern have the burden of proof. It’s cute that this simple and obvious remark has now been construed in about 4 silly ways, in dopey attempts to shake free of that clear burden.