According to the Pew's new U.S. Religious Landscape Study.
The decline appears largely in the mainline Protestant and Catholic segment of Christians, evangelicals having lost only one percentage point.
Those who name no religious affiliation have grown from 16.1% to 22.8% in this 7 year period. That segment is broken down into 3 groups: atheist, agnostic, and "nothing in particular." The "nothing in particular" people dominate. 15.8% of Americans affiliate with nothing religious, up from 12.1%. Atheists have broken through to 3.1%, up from 1.6%, but they're still trailing the agnostics, who've made it to 4.0%, up from 2.4%.
It's interesting to separate "nothing in particular" from agnostic. Is "nothing in particular" even more agnostic than agnostic? They don't even want to go out on a limb and say they don't know? Or (more likely) these are the people who feel they are spiritual or they believe in God in a way that doesn't lead them to join any organizations or they used to be something — such as mainline Protestant — but they lost the sense that membership in that group meant anything. So you can't add the nothings and the agnostics.
These "nothing in particular" people, at 15.8%, now outnumber the mainline Protestants, who are down to 14.7%, from 18.1%.
It's also interesting that Mormons — who might seem like a large and growing group — are only 1.6%, down from 1.7%. And how about Muslims? You hear so much about them, but they're only 0.9% (up from 0.4%). Buddhists hold steady at 0.7%. Hindus are up to 0.7%, from 0.3%. The biggest non-Christian religion is Judaism, and it's not declining. It's up to 1.9%, from 1.7%.
Much more at the link, including issues of age, race, region, and switching religions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
193 comments:
It seems to me that the Episcopal Church is all but dead.
The "three legged stool" of Anglican theology is Bible, tradition, reason. When the reason part has been completely co-opted by the social justice warriors, you're left with mysticism, Shrove Tuesday pancake suppers, and a bunch of buildings that puke Gothic. That's not enough to sustain people in daily living.
I'm surprised the number of identifying Christians is still so high. I agree that "nothing in particular" should not be lumped in with agnostics. They are almost certainly people who were raised in a religion but no longer practice it and, while they still believe in God, don't feel organized religion helps connect with him in any meaningful way.
I would guess the bulk of the shifting is people who consider themselves Christian by default but don't attend church or really think much about it. They might call themselves Christian one day and the next day agnostic or even atheist.
It's the same way with political affiliation--usually the swings aren't people running down to town hall to switch party registration, but rather they're feeling down on Democrats or Republicans at the time of the survey and temporarily identify with one or the other (or independent). It's more a survey of current mood than lasting affiliation.
Nothing in particular are people that absolutely believe in God. Defining your faith by religion is a common shortcut in reasoning. Separate God from Church. It's less confusing. Churches are man made and often exhibit the flaws of man and not the love of God
I'm going to wait for Nate Silver's analysis.
Worldwide, Mormon membership increased by about 300,000, from 15,082,000 at the end of 2013 to 15,372,000 at the end of 2014.
That's an increase of about 400 congregations.
I don't have it in front of me, but I would suspect that most of that growth is Africa, the Caribbean, and South America.
Put me down in the Iowan2 column. My God understanding is by far greater than any time before. Raised Catholic and rejected the Old Man On A Golden Throne In Heaven. I also learned that I am not God.
The Church is an essential part of Christianity, toss that aside and you're just making it up to suit yourself. Not that that's uncommon, it just "lightweight religion" to reference the tag. We are stronger in community.
I doubt that 70% are actually serious about their faith. Surveys I've seen put about 20% of Catholics as weekly attendees at Mass. That's the bare minimum BTW. There are plenty of lukewarm mostly disinterested people who might self identify as Catholic who inflate these numbers.
There's a simple test. If you do not adjust your life in obedience to your religion, and not just when it's easy or pleasing, you're not serious. I have more respect for the honest atheist/agnostic than the play along lukewarm Christian.
Althouse: "Or (more likely) these are the people who feel they are spiritual or they believe in God in a way that doesn't lead them to join any organizations"
I am one.
I am not an atheist. I do believe in a Higher Power that created the basis for the cosmos. (Why do we live in a universe that's explainable by mathematics?)
But I reject all organized religions. The whole concept of a personal God who can create a mathemtical cosmos of billions of galaxies but who also cares whether I go to church on Sunday or observe Lent or keep kosher or make the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca has always struck me as ridiculous.
Since all these organized religions contradict each other, my safest course of action has been to reject all of them and seek spirituality without them.
I guess that makes me a Deist, which I believe is the ONLY conception of God that makes scientific sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
For today's young people who have become disenchanted with organized religion but who seek meaning and purpose, they have only two relevant choices:
Deism and Buddhism.
sparrow sez: " If you do not adjust your life in obedience to your religion, and not just when it's easy or pleasing, you're not serious. "
I'm serious.
My conception of God is that he is as utterly remote from my personal life as are the billions of galaxies He created.
Hence I don't have to worry about either one.
The God I believe in, doesn't care about me personally. He has much more important things to worry about--like the creation of entire new universes.
"they have only two relevant choices:
Deism and Buddhism"
Such hollow choices, skip the vague middle ground and just be the atheist you already are. Really so God creates the world but doesn't care about it? He asks nothing of you, could care less? How does that construct provide meaning or purpose? I see neither in your proposal.
A very convenient ask nothing of you religion is "serious"? Not by my definition. It's effectively indistinguishable from atheism if it has no discernible effect on your life.
Fine: be a Deist but it really just the tiniest shade over from agnosticism. You've stopped searching too soon and took up the easy answer.
Polls like this are fundamentally flawed in that they don't take into account that all children are born atheist and don't subscribe to any religion until later brainwashed.
Brando notes, "I would guess the bulk of the shifting people who consider themselves Christian by default but don't attend church or really think much about it."
I'd say it's more extreme than that. If it were possible to identify the sum total of those people in combination with the ones who actively choose not to identify with Christianity or any other religion, the number would be high indeed.
I know many people who would call themselves "Christian" to a pollster or just to anyone who asked, but who don't really give a flip about any of it. I suspect everyone on these boards also know such people.
Jimbino Children are born agnostic - atheism must be taught as well.
Interesting survey. Real Religion is not a game. It is best defined as the organized propitiation of supernatural forces that claims it's select priesthood will for a price manipulate those forces with words and rituals, especially ritual killings of the innocent that displays the proof of deaths by blood of of once living pure animals or captured men.
Religion wants you. It wants sacrificial victims, and lots of them. Joining a religion at the right levels is a a way of escape from the victim levels.
That is why Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels is the one and only anti-religion. He ended it all. That is His good news.
This is another part of the Obama legacy. Perhaps, next year the PU survey should offer "federal govt" as ond of the religion choices.
Sparrow thinks: Jimbino Children are born agnostic - atheism must be taught as well.
Wrong, Sparrow. Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, but lack of belief that there is a god--exactly the state of the unbrainwashed child.
Amoral means lacking in morals, not having bad morals; that would be immoral.
Agnostic does not mean lack of belief in god; it is, rather, the skeptical posture of the scientist about everything until the evidence is in. The scientist is agnostic about life after death and dark energy.
Jimibino
Your definition of agnostic I'll accept. However atheism is not used in the manner you describe; your use is unique to you. Rather it is an explicit rejection of God and that is how it's understood. Children are a blank slate untaught, open to any possibility. I think of agnostics as open but your definition is fine. We agree substantively but not semantically
I wonder how much of Catholicism's three percentage point drop can be traced directly to Priests abusing Kids.
Leaving a church, divorcing a spouse -- it's not always clear which party drifted away from the other. I will note that as mainline Protestant denominational leaderships began wooing,and winning, the affections of social progressives, feminists, gays, and government bureaucrats exchanging cash for control of "faith-based initiatives" like HeadStart or MealsOnWheels the loyalty, generosity and attendance of the general mainline Protestant congregants began to decline.
Perhaps the correlation results from reverse causation: that the decline in congressional loyalty caused the leadership to chase after other, newer, members and funding sources. It would take a better statistician than I am to refine the data past the obviously correlated timelines. But in faith, and not by sight, I can rely upon the guidance of tried-and-true advice:
Matt 6:24
Clearing away the weeds of Christianity for the growth of Islam.
>>Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, but lack of belief that there is a god
That's not been my experience. Most atheists I've met are adamant that there is no God.
I would still identify as Christian, even though I am not one except as to take what I like from Christ's philosophies. Christians make the right enemies, in my mind, so I would rather be on their side.
But I went to church a lot as a child.
My faith is not that unsettled by the actions of others. I converted during the scandal. You don't know me well at all.
I'm just saying I can understand why people are put off, can't you?
The Bible passage is the sower parable - some sprouts are choked by the weeds of the world.
Freedom to reading or possessing Christian scripture by Peter, Paul, Mathew, Luke and John is a death penalty offense for a reason. It has that powerful a message freeing men's minds from established Religion and Priesthoods. It is the raison d'etre for our First Amendment and controversial every day.
The Roman Empire owned religion exterminated free scripture readers or possessors for several hundred years and seem to be ready to resume when a Pope utters a word.
Atheism is a kind of belief about religion in the same way that zero is a number.
And how about Muslims? You hear so much about them, but they're only 0.9% (up from 0.4%).
Except that that means they more than doubled in number. Given the famously low tolerance their extreme fringe shows for people who don't share their religious views this could be trouble.
Self evaluate more than you criticize others
----
Good advice I appreciate it.
I can always do better on that score.
Christian tradition, morality, and faith in declining order. The normalization of sacrificial rites and redistribution of opiates has favored a State-established "secular" cult.
Tradguy at 7:45 said it best.
I've said it before here. Religion is man's miserable attempt to make him acceptable to God.
Many in our society are simply finding new ways of expanding the definition religion from just churches.
And now we use numbers!
Atheism is a kind of belief about religion in the same way that zero is a number.
Not so. Religion is characterized by belief and faith in the absence of scientific evidence. There is no belief in atheism. Scientists don't "believe" in gravity or in the natural numbers. Calling the absence of belief a religion defies logic and language. You may as well call no-trump a kind of trump.
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."
There is only 1 way
Jimbino,
The belief or rejection of God is like a mathematical axiom. It is neither provable nor disprovable - it is simply rejected or accepted. Not all truths can be proven or all false statements falsified ( I'm referring to Godels Theorem, if you're interested).
Children are not born agnostic. They have a faith that is childlike.
Scott
Children have natural wonder, trust and openness but they must be taught who God is. So in the sense of a specific faith it must be nurtured. In a general sense however I would agree.
Jimbino thinks he is an atheist, but most people would call his position agnostic.
Semantics.
As for whether 'atheist' indicates an active rejection or just a lack of belief, just pick the dictionary with the definition you like.
sparrow said...
Jimbino Children are born agnostic - atheism must be taught as well.
Do you believe in all gods from all religions? Huixtocihuatl? Shakti? Odin? Eir?
If not, who taught you to reject and/or not believe in them?
Fern what's your point? Why ask such a ridiculous question?
Of course religion is taught, just as atheism is. I've never argued anything else.
Tank said...
Jimbino thinks he is an atheist, but most people would call his position agnostic.
Semantics.
Or, possibly strategy or politics.
Nothing in particular is not agnostic -- yet.
Trends are mostly one way -- Christians become "nothing in particular," their kids raised as "nothing in particular" either stay that way or slide further. Few agnostics and atheists make their way back to faith.
Pew is recording the tremors of a cultural earthquake.
The entire West is in decline - we're just a little behind Europe on the same road.
The absence of belief is not evidence of faith. However, affirmative statements about phenomenon outside of the scientific domain is establishment of faith. Atheism is a faith-based, amoral ideology and philosophy.
"Religion is characterized by belief and faith in the absence of scientific evidence."
That's silly.
Read 1 Corinthians 15. The early church, for instance, made a claim that Jesus was resurrected. It was never, "believe it because we say so." It was, "talk to the witnesses."
Faith always involves evidence. Everyone who believes has a reason for it, they have evidence that compels them towards a certain view of reality. Faith is an understanding of what has happened that leads to expectation of what will happen next. We believe based on assorted evidence the credibility of certain statements about history: did Jesus walk out of that tomb, did Mohammed receive a revelation, etc.
Based on that, people then orient their lives in a way that matches the evidence. If you believe that there is a God and that this God promises and responds to such promises, then faith leads one to live in light of promises that have not yet been fulfilled.
Indeed, like gravity it doesn't matter if you believe in or not. But, one can experience more of it and be more compelled the closer one is to the source.
Our culture accepts anyone who says he is a Christian as a Christian.
However, Jesus Christ says differently in Matthew 7: 21-23,
22 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
See also verses 13 -14:
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
There's a strong suggestion out there that this decline in religious allegiance is less of an actual change in religious belief and more of a shift away from seeing church as socially useful.
It used to be a lot of people went to church whether or not they believed in God (in declaration or practice). Nowadays, those who don't believe in God experience less social pressure to align themselves.
It's freeing for people and for churches alike.
Good point Paddy O,
Faith is propagated by witness testimony - the Word. So like in the sower parable it sometimes takes root and bears fruit and sometimes not (to second UNTRIBALIST).
What Paddy O said.
The biggest story in the polling data is the generational one. Catechesis has been fault erring for the past few generations and is approaching free fall.
In addition to that it's becoming more culturally acceptable to be agnostic, atheistic, or unaffiliated.
"It's freeing for people and for churches alike."
Perhaps but I think it's just a prelude to persecution.
Sparrow, read some excerpts from Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger)'s predictions, written circa 1970:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/02/16/pope-benedict-faith-and-the-future/
CStanley,
Is that the bit about a smaller more robust Church that's "lost much"? Second time in 2 days someone's mentioned it to me - thanks I'll read it
I wonder how much of Catholicism's three percentage point drop can be traced directly to Priests abusing Kids.
None. The people who still harp on this are ones who had either left the Church or would never be a part of it anyway.
Yes, sparrow....I was familiar with his thoughts on it from the book length interview he gave with Peter Seewald, God and the World. That is a fantastic book, BTW- but I only recently became aware that he had written prophetically about this change, several decades prior. Gave me goosebumps, and between this and Humanae Vitae I'd say the Church is having a better track record on predictive hypotheses than science is lately.
CStanley,
Smaller, less worldly but no doubt more consoled. I'm reminded of Paul & Silas in prison or the martyrdom of Kolbe.
They say Kolbe was at peace right to the end and Paul sang hymns in prison: that's a supportive faith.
@jimbino said: "Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, but lack of belief that there is a god--exactly the state of the unbrainwashed child."
That's my take on it, too. I think the question "Is there a God?" should be similar to "Are there unicorns?" There's no objective evidence for either, yet for unicorns the default position is "No", while for God the default position is "Yes" and you are seen as rejecting Him. Presumably this is because most of us were taught as a child that God exists.
I no more reject the existence of God than I do unicorns. I simply see no evidence of either.
Some of this may be media poisoning. People may be telling pollsters "nothing in particular" because they think that's now the socially acceptable answer, or just don't want to get into it on the phone with strangers.
FWIW (see first comment) average Sunday attendance in our Episcopal parish is up 20% in the past two years and we quite suddenly have a flock of children in the Sunday School. And some young people seem to actually like Gothic!
Christianity is not rational and enlightened, the over educated say, but meanwhile they all join a Gaia Green Earth Delusion Religion as their glorious established world State Church that uses police powers to demand sacrificing of billions of human lives to cleanse the planet from filthy human activity.
tradguy - too true
It's interesting to separate "nothing in particular" from agnostic.
Why? "Nothing in particular" is perhaps mildly interesting in the sense that one hasn't a clue what is meant by it, but "agnostic" indicates a specific conviction about the limits of human knowledge. I know the word is often used sloppily to mean "oh gee, I'm just not sure about this God thing", but properly it describes someone with the definite belief that we can't know.
In response to @jimbino (">>Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, but lack of belief that there is a god"),
@DanTheMan said: "That's not been my experience. Most atheists I've met are adamant that there is no God."
Consider the possibility that you simply don't hear from the latter category.
I dunno, Angelyne. I think, like jimbino, you are stretching to say that a word means what you feel it should mean rather than what it means in common usage.
By your definition, all believers are agnostic because virtually everyone concedes that we can't really know, that's why it's called faith. And if you take the word to mean that, it ceases to be a useful word.
Nothing in particular could mean the person is actively searching for truth, but in this context I think it means someone who has lost interest and is on the road away from faith.
a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Hair splitting. I tend to define agnosticism as open to the possibility of God - but that's my own experience. I really think the precise definitions don't matter much.
hoyden: Raised Catholic and rejected the Old Man On A Golden Throne In Heaven.
Hey, I was raised Catholic, too, and I don't remember anybody telling me the God was an Old Man on A Golden Throne in Heaven (or any of the "Old Guy with White Beard in the Sky" variants"). Drawn that way, sure.
I used to think that perhaps the densely symbolic nature of Catholicism offered some sort of correction for the natural tendencies of the densely literal-minded, at least relative to some other religions, but I guess not.
Not that I ended up as any kind of believer, but I don't recall any angsty mental struggles with bearded old farts.
The belief or rejection of God is like a mathematical axiom. It is neither provable nor disprovable - it is simply rejected or accepted. Not all truths can be proven or all false statements falsified ( I'm referring to Godels Theorem, if you're interested).
There will probably never be any scientific proof of God. I certainly have none to offer. But I've worked out for myself that the odds are that God exists.
Assumption: God can be described as a "being of higher consciousness." Note that this is only a description, not a definition.
Observation: Lower consciousness beings have only limited access to beings of higher consciousness. A beetle "knows" it is being poked by me but it can never know why it's being poked or who is doing the poking.
Assumption: All material objects can be arranged into hierarchies: Large to small – dark to light – heavy to light, etc. There are a multitude of hierarchies.
Assumption: Just as matter can be arranged into hierarchies, so can consciousness. A worm is of a lower consciousness than a bird; a bird is of lower consciousness than a chimp.
Mind experiment: Take 24 stones at random from a creek bed. You will find that they can be arranged into various hierarchies: Large to small, heavy to light, light in color to dark, etc.
Take those same stones and put them into a hat, then pull one out at random without seeing or feeling of the stones.
What's the chance that the stone will be the smallest? The darkest? The lightest?
The answer: Not much of a chance. The stone will probably be from somewhere in the middle range of the various hierarchies.
Then ask yourself where does man fall into the consciousness hierarchy. Ask yourself what are the chances that man is at the very end of the consciousness hierarchy. Refer back to the stone from the hat example. To my mind there is very little chance that man represents the summit of the consciousness hierarchy. To me it is obvious that higher consciousness probably exists independent of mankind. Refer back to the earlier observation pertaining to the limited comprehension of higher consciousness by lower consciousness.
I invite the readers to find flaws in my thoughts.
Anglelyne:
agnostic... the definite belief that we can't know
Exactly. This is a neutral belief system, as much as that it is practically possible. It neither affirms nor dismisses matters that are classified in the philosophical, faith, and fantasy logical domains. It merely acknowledges the facts inside a limited frame of reference in time and space (i.e. scientific domain), and, ideally, remains open or tolerant of the rest.
I will add that recognition of individual dignity and intrinsic value are properly classified as articles of faith, but are routinely promoted to the status of axioms for practical purposes.
Original Mike:
In its original form, atheism is an ambiguous statement of faith, but as with the concepts of progress, liberal, conservative etc. has acquired a common [mis]interpretation or perception not uniquely established by its nature.
Original Mike wrote;
I simply see no evidence of either.
Let's stick with the Unicorn example you used above.
What would be evidence of a Unicorn? I'm not really sure what the properties of a Unicorn are, other than they are just like horses and have a single horn on top of their head.
Seeing one would be evidence, but then, that wouldn't be enough. Touching one. Maybe seeing it's hoof prints?
On the other hand, what is the evidence of God?
Miracles? A man being raised from the dead? Walking on water? Your very existence?
Just because you reject the evidence doesn't mean there is no evidence.
I've never understood why people conflate the two.
agnostic... the definite belief that we can't know
If Christ appeared to you like Thomas and showed you the holes in His hands and feet you would not believe? If God is real, and I believe He is, He can reveal Himself in such a way that you would know, in the sense of knowing by direct experience.
Absent His self-revelation, left to ourselves I agree we can't know. Faith is a gift.
Indeed, like gravity it doesn't matter if you believe in or not. But, one can experience more of it and be more compelled the closer one is to the source.
Well said, Paddy O.
Interesting that most of the gains made by Christian Churches come from non-white Americans.
traditionalguy:
The Judeo-Christian philosophy is both rational and enlightened. It not only establishes a firm separation of logical domains, but a well defined set of moral principles and laws, and offers direction to inhibit narcissistic orientations.
"Miracles? A man being raised from the dead? Walking on water?"
No evidence those happened.
"Your very existence?"
The universe exists. It is a mystery.
Jesus Christ changed the world > there's plenty of evidence of that fact. There's also plenty of witness testimony - again this is evidence. It maybe evidence you reject but still it's evidence.
Evidence I don't accept does not equal no evidence.
Lots of people changed the world. All religions have witness testimony.
CStanley: I dunno, Angelyne. I think, like jimbino, you are stretching to say that a word means what you feel it should mean rather than what it means in common usage.
If by "feel" you mean "using the dictionary definition" or "using the word in the specific sense for which it was coined", yeah, I guess so.
By your definition, all believers are agnostic because virtually everyone concedes that we can't really know, that's why it's called faith. And if you take the word to mean that, it ceases to be a useful word.
So let's just call everybody "agnostic", because virtually everyone, from the atheist to the most devout (except maybe pithed spergs like jimbino and crazed religious fanatics) concedes that we can't really know, one way or the other.
Iow, the "common usage" you're promoting is so fuzzy as to be useless. The doubts of the faithful and the epistemological stance of the agnostic aren't the same thing. That's why the word "agnostic" was coined in the first place, to have a clear way of distinguishing the two. Using them interchangeably kinda defeats the purpose of having nice clear distinctions, no?
A person of faith who doubts is a person of faith who doubts. He still has faith, right? But one can be an agnostic and not have, or ever have had, faith.
An atheist is is one who denies the existence of God.
Somebody who isn't persuaded one way or the other that a God exists is somebody who isn't persuaded one way or the other that God exists.
And we have the nice word "agnostic" to distinguish from the above three, someone with the philosophical conviction that we can't know, which isn't necessarily shared by people in any of the three preceding categories.
Seems pretty clear to me. That's it's possible that an individual may slot into different categories at different times, or even at the same time, doesn't mean that they're really all just one pot of goo.
Original Mike said...
@jimbino said: "Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, but lack of belief that there is a god--exactly the state of the unbrainwashed child."
That's my take on it, too. I think the question "Is there a God?" should be similar to "Are there unicorns?"
Yup.
You can see here that people like to think their own belief in a god is special, and that not believing something similar is qualitatively different than not believing in Zeus and hundreds of other gods, gods which they have no problem not thinking about from one day to the next, much less not believing in.
"Evidence I don't accept does not equal no evidence."
I understand that you see evidence that I do not. Remember, I am not arguing there is no God. I am merely saying I do not believe in one. (A distinction you seem to reject.)
Here are several miracles for you: 1) In 452 Attila the Hun was persuaded by St Leo the Great not to sack Rome , which was defenseless at the time. The faithful say Attila had a vision of a Spirit (some say Peter other Michael) with a menacing sword and that persuaded him. In any case Attila did not attack but could have.
2) The eight Jesuits priests who survived the bomb at Hiroshima. They were saying the rosary when it dropped, none died of radiation poisoning either.
3) The Miracle of the Sun in Fatima Portugal at the end of WWI. Read that one, it's quite something, many atheists were converted afterwards.
No evidence you will examine is not equal to no evidence.
Many are called, few are chosen.
As society becomes increasingly hostile to Christianity, the people who identify as Christian as a matter of cultural affinity or family background will stop doing so, and that percentage will continue to fall. Maybe once Christians are in the minority we'll be popular.
"I am not arguing there is no God. I am merely saying I do not believe in one. (A distinction you seem to reject.)"
It's actually a point I missed entirely - perhaps you could expand it a bit I didn't get it earlier
Original Mike,
I was an agnostic for 37 years in my last few years I was intrigued by faith and its effects but had none. Is that what you mean? I'm sorry I missed your point earlier.
All of us, believers, atheists and agnostics, KNOW very little of what we think we know. We only KNOW what we have experienced. Everything else we take what others have said, or written, on faith.
Fern,
That's a total cop out philosophically. The existence of God is part of the quest for meaning in life. Why there is anything at all rather than nothing demands at least a look. To say it's not even worthy of inquiry is disingenuous
Sparrow - It's jimbino's original point; " Atheism is not the belief that there is no god, but lack of belief that there is a god".
Actually, I think there are two different states for which we need different names.
How strange that the decline of the mainline religions should coincide with their secularization of their ceremonies and doctrine...
Original Mike You are right: I do not see the distinction at all. - Not believing there is a God must necessarily mean you reject the existence of God. It's a logical corollary, the lack of belief is like -1*(1) + 1 = 0 While he disbelief is like -1 + 1 = 0. There is no logical distinction. You've lost me here.
I'm thinking it through here a bit and I see some small difference I guess in the sense that rejection of God is passive while disbelief is active. Is that what you are driving at?
Anglelyne, OMOAGTIN is my short hand way of expressing "faith imposed from an outside agent". I much prefer the organic faith gained through the college of hard knocks.
To restate that I mean lack of faith is passive disbelief active
An apathiest doesn't care if there's a God.
Bravo Hoyden - very amusing
Let's stop beating around the bush and take a look at the elephant in the room everyone is ignoring. The modern redefinition of atheism is weak attempt to avoid the obvious logical trap.
Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.
Sorry, bad link.
Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.
"I'm thinking it through here a bit and I see some small difference I guess in the sense that rejection of God is passive while disbelief is active. Is that what you are driving at?"
I think your choice of the phrase "rejection of God" is instructive. The phrase suggests you believe there is this obvious case for God that I must be "rejecting". Thus, you would say "Original Mike believes there is no God." In point of fact, I have no evidence one way or the other; I have no evidence there is a God, not do I have evidence there is not*, so I say, "I have no belief in God".
*I have to admit, the story seems rather far fetched, but that doesn't constitute a proof he doesn't exist.
I wonder how much of Catholicism's three percentage point drop can be traced directly to Priests abusing Kids.
Very few. It was few priests who did the deed that is more prevalent in public schools and just as prevalent in other religions.
For myself, I would like to stay a Catholic, but when you have priests who preach the 'social justice' of the government (forgetting it's own relevant place in ministering to the poor) and politicians who support abortion, while the highest echelons of the Church are putting in place leftists and pushing out strong defenders of it's own doctrine, not to mention barely a peep said or a finger raised about the persecution of Christians in the East and the West.......well, it kind of leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Makes it seem 'The Rock' has become shifting sand.
Evangelical Franklin Graham is out defending the faith, promoting it without shame, doesn't speak of changing God's word, and quite vocally speaks out in defense of the persecuted. If only The Church did the same.
Original Mike,
Yes of course my own beliefs color my language. To my mind whether you passively lack belief to use a better phrase or actively disbelieve is a very fine distinction with little to no consequence. How does this distinction play out into some behavior or activity? I don't see how, except perhaps your lack of belief is more polite?
Orginial,
I agree the story of Christ is pretty wild, but elements of it are not that hard to reasonably assert. The belief in a non-contingent being that exists in and of itself is necessary to avoid an infinite recursion of causes. The prime mover thesis is logically accessible, Aquinas knew his stuff.
I think your choice of the phrase "rejection of God" is instructive. The phrase suggests you believe there is this obvious case for God that I must be "rejecting" said Original Mike.
Instructive, but not to suggest that one must follow or learn. This is not case law..
Christian believers understand that God "draws" men to His saving grace. All men, regardless of any qualifiers. So we are exposed to God's love and in our spirits, not necessarily our minds, choose to reject or accept it. This often occurs over a period of time. God is not passive and He certainly doesn't require me to fully understand the kingdom relationship, only to yield to Him.
The mind comes around after a while for those who are concerned with giving up too much!
Given that pull, I gladly accept.
"To my mind whether you passively lack belief to use a better phrase or actively disbelieve is a very fine distinction with little to no consequence. How does this distinction play out into some behavior or activity? I don't see how, except perhaps your lack of belief is more polite?"
It's a big distinction (it seems absurd to claim "I know there is no God." How could I possibly know that?)
with no practical consequence other than clear thinking (which is important to me because I think about existence and the universe a lot).
BTW, why do you think it is impolite to believe there is no God? I get the sense that lots of believers do and I don't understand it. It's as if lack of belief is insulting to them, which it should not be.
I discovered very early in life that I had no feel for religion, first my own and then in general. I used to call myself an atheist whenever the question occurred to me, which was rarely. I began to notice that the particularly repellent sort of crusading atheist busybody that annoys everyone but himself is the sort that claims and defines the word atheist. I find such people as puzzling as Christians, among whom I was raised, and vastly more annoying. Nowadays I don't claim a label. The truth is that religious questions are not important to me. Call that whatever you like, just so you move on to something interesting after you've got me pigeonholed.
I figure that there is an impulse to religion present in more people than not and that some religious idea or other will always occupy that place in their minds. In a crusading atheist I seem to recognize the religious impulse worn like a garment turned inside out.
Some atheists on the left have made a tacit enemy of my enemy alliance with Islam as part of the identity politics race package. Those folks should ask themselves whether they prefer more authoritarian religious forms to the sort they imagine themselves engaged against. They're like a dumbass who menaces his opponent with a rattlesnake.
"The belief in a non-contingent being that exists in and of itself is necessary to avoid an infinite recursion of causes."
It doesn't do that at all. If God can exist forever, so can the universe.
Original,
You've not been impolite at all - thank you for that BTW. I see your point that you are avoiding making an assertion you can not back up and rather are simply not affirming a belief you similarly can not back up. Seems logical. I once called myself an agnostic for similar reasons, it's so long ago now in my thinking I barely remember it. It's a world away to me now thank God.
From "The Voice of Genius: Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries":
Q: Do you call yourself an agnostic or an atheist?
Feynman: An atheist. Agnostic for me would be trying to weasel out and sound a little nicer than I am about this.
Q: But I thought a scientist couldn't call himself an atheist, because that's like saying "There is no God," and you can't prove a negative.
Feynman: I don't have to prove it. I only say: "Look, I don't know that there is a God; I just don't think there is one."
Q: That makes you an agnostic.
Feynman: No, no, no, no, no.
Q: According to the dictionary (Webster's New World): an agnostic is "a person who thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a God or a future life, or anything beyond material phenomena."
Feynman: That's too refined. There's always an edge. What I mean is this: the probability that the theory of God, the ordinary theory, is right, to my mind is extremely low. That's all. That's the way I look at it.
Sure but the universe is measurably degrading and has an intrinsic end and a beginning. God is outside of time, unchanging
"God is outside of time, unchanging"
At our current level of understanding of space-time, it appears time is an illusion; that all time exists simultaneously. I could suggest reading material if you're interested.
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
I guess Feynman knows now
Orginial,
You sound like a theologian with that bit
Just a physicist. And a human being.
"Just a physicist. And a human being."
Those are good thing to be too
need to edit before I send
Quantum mechanics borders on the mystical - it's certainly surprising revealing and baffling at once
In China the 25,000 new Christians a month now over 100,000,000 in all are not worried about the Communist Party. It is the Communist Party that wants them to go away before it's too late.
They fear faith in Jesus. But that is because it is taught as Pentecostal Spirit based in practice. That is also what scares the South American clerics such that one called pope France now wants a UN church alliance controlling the world's wealth before it is too late.
"Quantum mechanics borders on the mystical - it's certainly surprising revealing and baffling at once"
Quantum mechanics is crazy. There's something we're missing.
sparrow said...
Fern,
That's a total cop out philosophically. The existence of God is part of the quest for meaning in life.
The existence of Zeus is part of the quest for meaning in life.
Why there is anything at all rather than nothing demands at least a look. To say it's not even worthy of inquiry is disingenuous.
Not believing in Zeus makes baby Perseus cry!
"
I simply see no evidence of either."
I dont' see any evidence of macro evolution either.
We know you don't believe in evolution, jr.
Fern
Still a cop out
the only evidence of macro evolution is not really evidence of macro evolution. We see a an animal and then we make conjecture about how its fin must have once been a leg, or became a leg milions of millions of years hence. And are then told we dont' see it happening because it occurs over millions of years.
Original Mike wrote:
We know you don't believe in evolution, jr.
Im agnostic on it. I believe in micro evolution, sure. But macro evolution requires the same leap of faith that believing in an almight God does.
sparrow wrote:
Fine: be a Deist but it really just the tiniest shade over from agnosticism. You've stopped searching too soon and took up the easy answer.
A deist does believe in God, or a supreme being. He just can't say he knows Gods precise face.
But they kind of do at the same time.
j5565
The shared genetic code is ample evidence of macroevolution.
Evolution fails to explain origin, the very first life, but not the process. The need to assert a hard Biblical timeline is Biblical literalists problem.
A lot of the founding fathers were Deists. Jefferson proclaimed that he didnt' believe in a lot of the miracles of the bible. But he did believe in the moral lessons of the bible. And so would strike out all the stuff that seemed magical. But be left with the lessons like, Don't kill, or steal. Which were universal values. And thus that showed the face of God, not the so called miracles of God.
Franklin was a Deist too I believe
sparrow wrote:
The shared genetic code is ample evidence of macroevolution.
Evolution fails to explain origin, the very first life, but not the process. The need to assert a hard Biblical timeline is Biblical literalists problem.
Not necessarily. Look, you could make the argument that evolution is simply gods way of creating life. So the two are not incompatible. But just because we share genetic DNA doesn't mean that it's because of evolution. Shared Genetic code is in fact there in all life forms. Because that's the building blocks of life
"But he did believe in the moral lessons of the bible."
So do I.
the issue I have with evolution, as defined is that animals change over time to become completely different animals through random mutations. I simply dont' buy that.
If it makes you feel better I also dont' buy the literal chrisitian view of life's beginnings either.
Original Mike wrote:
"But he did believe in the moral lessons of the bible."
So do I.
But deists view those as absolutely true, and thus prove a higher power. You just agree because you think they make sense.
I happen to believe that evolution explains much of biology very well - I've studied it. Of course God can work within natural means or outside them at His will so it's a matter of what you believe God in communicating to us, through Moses the author of Genesis.
"You just agree because you think they make sense."
I agree because I think they are the proper way to treat other human beings.
"the issue I have with evolution, as defined is that animals change over time to become completely different animals through random mutations. I simply dont' buy that."
You have this crazy idea that two forms have to exist in the same animal.
Original Mike is describing a belief in what we Catholics refer to as natural law - the idea that many of the moral fundamentals are discernible without supernatural revelation.
Recall many of the pre-Christian pagans had sophisticated ethics
Thomas Hobbes wrote:
The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence."
Definitely not atheism.
I was raised Catholic.
The general decline is completely understandable to me in that Hollywood and TV is almost completely anti-Christian. Hardly ever is a preacher presented in a positive light in movies and TV; all are portrayed as hypocritical.
Portrayal of daily life seldom includes any practice of Christianity that is positive.
I was raised Catholic.
Why'd you leave the Church, if you don't mind a personal question.
Original Mike wrote:
You have this crazy idea that two forms have to exist in the same animal.
I don't hold that view. My view is you cant' get here from there, even over a longer period of time.
Orignal Mike wrote:
"You just agree because you think they make sense."
I agree because I think they are the proper way to treat other human beings.
Right, you think they make sense for you. But does your thinking they make sense for you bind anyone else to that same view point? If another person thinks its ok to enslave people, is views are going to be diametrically opposed to yours. Is either of you really right though? Since you are both coming to how to treat people based on your own personal views.
@sparrow: I started doubting at a pretty young age. I remember asking my mother how it was that I just happened to be born into the true faith and what happened to souls who weren't baptized, stuff like that, and coming away thinking how unfair God was. But how could that be?
As I grew older I just stopped believing in the narrative. At the risk of offending, I've come to believe that religion grew out of a need for mankind to explain the universe. Science does it better.
"I don't hold that view."
Sorry if I phrased it poorly. What was the thing about the fish turning into a wolf; or something like that.
"But does your thinking they make sense for you bind anyone else to that same view point?"
Yes. Civilization needs laws.
My view is that an animal can only be an animal. Whatever is in its DNA defines how it can exist. It can't morph into other animals (unless that is a characteristic encoded in its DNA)> So a fish could never become a bipedal animal which in turn would go on to be a rat, which in turn would go on to be a monkey (gradually over millions of years).
Orignal Mike wrote:
Sorry if I phrased it poorly. What was the thing about the fish turning into a wolf; or something like that.
Rather than me explain it, why dont' you explain what you think evolution allows For. We have animals from millions of years ago, and we have animals now. How do you think they are related to the animals from millions of years ago.
I think you'll find that the wolf had to have come from a fish. You'd construct a long storyline that started with a fish, and ended with a wolf. ANd would be constructing a narrative of a species that over time changed into a different species.
Yes, wolves came from aquatic vertebrates.
Original Mike wrote:
"But does your thinking they make sense for you bind anyone else to that same view point?"
Yes. Civilization needs laws.
So then there is nothing really wrong with Muslims, killing people for doing cartoons of the prophet since that is the view point/ laws constructed by their religion/civilization.
When you say No that's wrong,you are adhering to a higher law, that they are supposedly violating by acting like barbarians. If that higher law doesnt' exist, then how are you coming to the conclusion they are acting like barbarians? THos are simply your rules, not theirs.
Orignal Mike wrote:
Yes, wolves came from aquatic vertebrates.
Show me the proof.
"THos are simply your rules, not theirs."
If "they" are killing people, I have no problem imposing "my" rules on them.
You have the fossil from millions of years ago, and you have the fossil from 100 years ago, or you have the actual wolf now.
Knowing what I know about wolves, I know that a wolf can't give birth to a cat, or have babies with anything other than other dog species. So, how did an aquatic vertebrate give birth to a wolf, even over time.
Wolves will always give birth to wolves. A wolf's DNA only allows for so much variation. And similarly aquatic vertebrates are limited by their DNA.
Original Mike, some of what you say resonates with me even though I'm a believer. On this though:
I've come to believe that religion grew out of a need for mankind to explain the universe. Science does it better.
I find the reasoning odd. Science says practically nothing about man's purpose or relationship to the universe, and THAT is what religion is for.
Personally I feel that my beliefs could be wrong but I make a choice to believe because I wouldn't want to live in a universe where God didn't exist. I think I have as much doubt and skepticism as many nonbelievers do but I choose to live as though it is all true, and it has served me well to do so. Kind of like Pascal's wager but it wasn't as though there was one point in time at which I made that choice, I just find that Christianity, and more specifically the Catholic theology, explain so much about human nature so that it helps me understand myself and resolve differences with other people in a way that I don't think would be possible otherwise.
Orginal,
I ran the same road in reverse; my family were secular and scientific skeptics. God was hardly spoken of beyond a distant past. I came to find science to be inadequate as an explanation lacking Beauty and transcendence, although physics and molecular biology have elements of both. I work as a scientist, but I see the arena as merely practical rather than illuminating.
BTW you don't offend at all, truth matters and you express yourself honestly without hostility. I'm amazed this is possible on the internet and I appreciate it.
Original Mike wrote:
If "they" are killing people, I have no problem imposing "my" rules on them.
If killing people is not an absolute moral evil you can only come to that trough logic. Is it always true? If I look at nature I see no prohibition on murder. In fact Darwinism suggests survival of the fittest. Why then would that not guide my morality?
Logicallly murder makes a lot of sense. I get what I want, by killing you. If it's important that I get what I want and there's no REAL reason to not kill you (other than your opinion) what's wrong with doing it?
"I find the reasoning odd. Science says practically nothing about man's purpose or relationship to the universe, and THAT is what religion is for."
You're right, religion has more aspects than explaining the natural world. I think that's where it got its start, but it evolved into more than that.
" I know that a wolf can't give birth to a cat, "
What a ridiculous statement.
""I find the reasoning odd. Science says practically nothing about man's purpose or relationship to the universe, and THAT is what religion is for."
If the world just IS, is there any reason to try to figure out the meaning of it? It's just random. There would be no meaning. So why waste time thinking about inherent meaning and mans purpose.
You're right, religion has more aspects than explaining the natural world. I think that's where it got its start, but it evolved into more than that.
Yeah I don't think religion and science should invade each other's turf. But most of the trespassing is coming from the direction of science trying to usurp religion these days, as far as I can tell.
@sparrow: I'm an avid amateur astronomer and cosmologist. I am in awe of the the universe; none the less so that I see no purpose.
If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
It's either real (and wonderful) or pointless
Original Mike wrote:
" I know that a wolf can't give birth to a cat, "
What a ridiculous statement.
It would be ridiculous if a wolf today gave birth to a cat today. But it's just as ridiculous to assume that the fish of millions of years ago, eventually gave birth to the wolf of today. His ancestors would give birth to yet more fish. Not fish that had lungs. And then floundered around for millions of years before getting fur, and then millions of more years walking on four legs.
At every step of the way it would need to have a subtle change, that also allowed it to survive for millions of years in its current form. If you go from gills to lungs, then you'd have animals with some gill/lung combo that wouldn't work as either gills or lungs. till eventually they got the lungs that allow them to breathe air. Until they walked on all fours they'd have partilally constructed limbs that hadn't evolved yet to legs which couldn't possibly do them much good as an animal that is trying to survive and mate.
jr: Look up amphibians.
Here's the bit that always keeps me believing....
The story of the Fall of man....I don't believe the garden story as a literal event, but as allegory it is perfect. It explains man's capacity for both good and evil, and the fatal flaw of hubris.
I'm of the opinion that if this story, paired with e story of Christ's incarnation and self sacrifice, did not exist then men would need to invent it in order to correctly orient himself in the moral universe. And so it becomes a moot point to me, whether or not it is literally true.
I understand Original. In my view the atheist position make sense, is logical and coherent. There are hints and glimpses of greater things hiding all around us but, it's easy to ignore them or more accurately to draw no larger conclusions from them.
The world of Christ is effusive joyful and exuberant beyond explanation: it's also only accessible through faith. I sat outside looking into the church windows for years wondering about it before I was graced with it. I think I may have said this before I don't think any explanation will suffice; it's too personal. Even if you are fully open to hear it without faith it's "nonsense the Greek and a stumbling block to the Jew"
I think those pusing evolution simply have a theory that makes little sense if you think bout the practical implications of what the animals must have been like who are evolving. And simply apply magic fairy dust "Over time they changed. Over millions of years". So we can get this vertebrate here, and look its bone slightly resembles a leg. It must have developed legs over time.
How many millions of years did it take to develop that leg? Whats' the animal doing with itself while waiting for a functional leg to evolve to where it can use it?
original mike why not mermaids?
Amphibians are animals that can live on land and in water. They, I'd contend are and have always been amphbians. A frog will always give birth to frogs. Any variations will still be recognizable as frogs. They are cold blooded. They will always be cold blooded.
So is it your asswertion that cold blooded animals evolved to warm blooded animals. How would that work, and how would that be an advantage while it wasn't yet warm blooded?
jr565:
We need to distinguish between the principles of evolution that describe a [chaotic] physical process and "The Theory of Evolution" (TTOE) that conflates science, philosophy, and faith. While there is substantial circumstantial evidence to support TTOE, there is no probable path by which it can ever be tested in the scientific domain (i.e. limited frame of reference in time and space, observation, reproduction, deduction).
The fact is that neither divine nor evolutionary creation can be established in the scientific domain. The conclusion must be that one or both or neither are factual, but rather represent myth and inference (i.e. created knowledge), respectively, and people's need to explain what cannot be known.
"I'm of the opinion that if this story, paired with e story of Christ's incarnation and self sacrifice, did not exist then men would need to invent it in order to correctly orient himself in the moral universe."
I think that's what happened.
"And so it becomes a moot point to me, whether or not it is literally true."
And for me, why I think religion is a good thing, even though I don't believe in it.
@Original Mike- for me I think it's a combination of that which I described (the moral implications) along with a sense that I can't conceive of the universe existing forever or coming into being spontaneously. You said earlier that one might as well believe that the universe always existed as that God has always existed, but I don't find those two concepts equally implausible (this is like Aquinas' proofs.)
I'll note that believing in evolution wouldn't negate a belief in god. That could simply be how god creates life. So, I'm not coming at it from the standpoint that it must be God or evolution. I just think those pushing it are relying on an awful lot of mumbo jumbo that if they weren't believers in evolution they would think was implausible.
Original Mike wrote:
I think that's what happened.
"And so it becomes a moot point to me, whether or not it is literally true."
And for me, why I think religion is a good thing, even though I don't believe in it.
Kind of like Platos' the noble lie?
I'd say that same about evolution. Absent a belief in God, non believers have to come up with something to exlain the unexplainable that doesn't involve God.
The book Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy eventually had the creators of the world be, not god, but a terraforming company that creates worlds.
Which was funny. But at the same time, it still hits on the fundamental problem with not believing in God. How would the world be created so precisely through a random event so as house life. And not only house life, but would have to cool off for millions of years AND THEN have life start. It would have to be the exact right distance from the sun, be the exact right atmosphere. And still maintain that after cooling off. Or the colling off process would have to be another random event that cooled off in precisely the right way that life had to magically appear, fully formed.
You can believe in randomness, but I've never heard of a randomness so ordered and intelligent.
Almost like it was terraformed.
jr: look up anthropic principle
sparrow said..."The Church is an essential part of Christianity, toss that aside and you're just making it up to suit yourself."
Exactly. Not for nothing Jesus said: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
anthropic principle-
"The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this is a necessity, because if life were impossible, no living entity would be there to observe it, and thus would not be known. That is, it must be possible to observe some universe, and hence, the laws and constants of any such universe must accommodate that possibility.
So the universe wants to be known and creates life so that people can come up with the anthropic principle?
"The argument can be used to explain why the conditions happen to be just right for the existence of (intelligent) life on the Earth at the present time. For if they were not just right, then we should not have found ourselves to be here now, but somewhere else, at some other appropriate time."
Sounds like there's planning involved. And that the universe is not in fact random. God perhaps? IF it were in fact random, why assume that we would need to be anywhere? let alone somewhere else?
"This principle was used very effectively by Brandon Carter and Robert Dicke to resolve an issue that had puzzled physicists for a good many years. The issue concerned various striking numerical relations that are observed to hold between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the age of the universe, etc.). A puzzling aspect of this was that some of the relations hold only at the present epoch in the Earth's history, so we appear, coincidentally, to be living at a very special time (give or take a few million years!). This was later explained, by Carter and Dicke, by the fact that this epoch coincided with the lifetime of what are called main-sequence stars, such as the Sun. At any other epoch, so the argument ran, there would be no intelligent life around in order to measure the physical constants in question — so the coincidence had to hold, simply because there would be intelligent life around only at the particular time that the coincidence did hold!"
So there needs to be life on earth so that they could measure the constants in question at a precise time in the universe? What?
How could you hold that view and not assume there was some plan involved?
From the Goldilocks enigma; possibilities explaining fine tuning:
1.The absurd universe: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
Which is absurd, since randomness could never produce such order accidentally.
2.The unique universe: There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the Universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
Which suggest a god. If the universe needs to be the way it is, then why must it? Implies order, and planning
3.The multiverse: Multiple universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a universe that allows us to exist."
Again, why? HOw is it that the universe created this exact space for life, and provided the exact right natural laws and climae to allow for myriad life to exist here? Considerint there was a big bang it implies there was a beginning. HOw then did we go from a bang, to a multiverse?
4.Intelligent Design: A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence.
Clearly implies god. Or aliens
5.The life principle: There is an underlying principle that constrains the Universe to evolve towards life and mind.
Then the universe is in fact intelligent. Implies god.
6.The self-explaining universe: A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist." This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
It is simply because it is?
7.The fake universe: We live inside a virtual reality simulation.
aagain, implies a creator of the virtual reality simulation. Perhaps not god, but a computer of sorts. Perhaps we are in the matrix.
You're missing the point, jr. What the Anthropic Principle holds is that it is not a surprise that we find ourselves in a place and a time that is conducive to life. How could it be otherwise? If "here" and "now" were not conducive to life we wouldn't be here to observe it.
Yes, there are a lot of hypotheses.
How do you get out of being counted a Catholic? My young Austrian friend, tired of paying church taxes in Germany, had to pay 75DM to get out.
How do you stop being counted a Jew? Reverse your circumcision?
How do you stop being counted a Muslim? Become killed for apostasy?
Jesus, the most famous Jew, was never a Christian, since St Paul invented Christianity some 70 years after his death.
Einstein, the second most famous Jew, renounced his Jewish faith at age 15. Was he still counted as a Jew?
Original Mike wrote:
You're missing the point, jr. What the Anthropic Principle holds is that it is not a surprise that we find ourselves in a place and a time that is conducive to life. How could it be otherwise? If "here" and "now" were not conducive to life we wouldn't be here to observe it.
But that says nothing about why we are here alive and in an environment that allows us to be here. It only says that we are in such an environment.
I think therefore I am. Well why am in a universe that allows me to exist?
Because if you weren't in such a universe you couldn't think that you existed.
Sounds a bit circular.
Jr the point is that if you start with the supposition that there was no Creator, that the universe either always was or came into being spontaneously, there is no inconsistency in recognizing the particular orderliness and conditions of our universe. So you disagree with this only because you disagree with the first principle of it, the axiom on which it is based. This you will not convince someone who holds this other axiom.
I think a better argument is just to ask the other person to recognize that your own axiom of a Creator is not illogical, and in fact is the hypothesis that is most consistent with all of our observations. This is all we really should ask of each other- to allow for mutual respect of our respective viewpoints.
Suppose a gold fish wakes up one day inside a fish bowl. THat's its first recollection. Did it magically appear in a fish bowl? But of course it's in a fish bowl. Otherwise it couldn't observe that it was in a fish bowl.
Only, logic would dictate that's its in a fish bowl because we put it there. Fish don't magically materialize in fish bowls. even fish that are born in fish bowls are there because their parents were first put there by someone who placed them there.
And so anthropic theory doesn't really solve the why it only comments on the is. And that's already known.
And it circular logic.
"And so anthropic theory doesn't really solve the why "
No, it doesn't. But with respect to the universe, there's no prove there is a "why" question to answer.
CJ Stanley wrote:
Jr the point is that if you start with the supposition that there was no Creator, that the universe either always was or came into being spontaneously, there is no inconsistency in recognizing the particular orderliness and conditions of our universe. So you disagree with this only because you disagree with the first principle of it, the axiom on which it is based. This you will not convince someone who holds this other axiom.
I think a better argument is just to ask the other person to recognize that your own axiom of a Creator is not illogical, and in fact is the hypothesis that is most consistent with all of our observations. This is all we really should ask of each other- to allow for mutual respect of our respective viewpoints.
Thats's a fair point. But really the alternative theory is simply saying "It just is". If it just is, there's no reason to come up with anthropic theories as to why it is, since none of those theories would matter. There is no why, It just is.
Here's an article from Christianity Today that points to what I said earlier. It's more an issue of cultural alignment, with nominal Christians no longer feeling they need to identify as Christian.
Wow, did this ever go off topic.
To add to this before I try to address the issue at hand, the difference between the unicorn and God is quite vast. If the unicorn is a real creature or not means nothing in the grander scheme of things (barring God being a unicorn, which would be a total kick in the pants). The question of God is part of the essential question of "Why am I here?" and its various corollaries ("How should I live?", "Where did I come from?", etc.) Everyone has to answer this question in some way or another. It is fundamental to the human experience. Variations on "God" are among the possible answers.
As to the poll, it sounded extremely fishy to me when I first read it and upon further review I was correct in my doubts. I direct you here for an expert analysis:
http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-island-of-misfit-polls.html
The first thing that really jumps out is Pew is doing an analysis on TWO DATA POINTS. Seriously? If this was like a census where the large majority of the population is surveyed then you can do such an analysis, probably. But a poll, even a poll with 35,000 respondents, cannot ever have that sort of certainty. While I cannot comment on the quality of the polling itself, the attached analysis is so utterly incompetent that it brings not only this poll into question but the entire reputation of Pew in general. Where is the editorial control?
Also of note is other pollsters track religious affiliation. At the link you'll see that the other three pollsters do not detect the drop that Pew found. Alas, the danger of TWO FRIGGING DATA POINTS! Idiots.
Barring God being a unicorn, which would be a total kick in the pants
Or if He really has a sense of humor, He'll appear to us as a Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Post a Comment