I read this rather damning article saying:
Britain is now one of the most irreligious countries on earth. This island has shed superstition faster and more completely than anywhere else. According to an ICM survey, 63 per cent of us are non-believers, while 82 per cent say religion is a cause of harmful division.
How did this happen? Their case was too weak, their opposition to divorce and abortion and gay people too cruel, their evidence for their claims nonexistent. Once they had to rely on persuasion rather than intimidation, the story of British Christianity came to an end.Gosh.
See, from my rather subjective perspective, I feel like just as many people go to church as they ever did, but they go less frequently, with weekends being used for visiting grannies, grandchildren, children's sports and a host of other things.. Families are more spread apart, and with everyone working, the weekends become used to catch up on jobs.I think people still want to come to church, but life is so hectic..
I went in search of the report that was quoted in the article, but failed.. found a graph on Wikipedia though:
And some statistics which seem less gloomy:
An Ipsos MORI poll in 2003 reported that 43% considered themselves to be "a member of an organised religion" (18% were "a practising member of an organised religion")[60] An ICM survey in 2006 found that only 33% considered themselves to be "a religious person", with 43% saying they never attended religious services.[61]
A Eurobarometer opinion poll in 2005 reported that 38% "believed there is a God", 40% believe there is "some sort of spirit or life force" and 20% said "I'don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force".[62] A survey in 2007 suggested that 42% of adults resident in the UK prayed, with one in six praying on a daily basis.[63]I don't deny that Britain is becoming more secular, although I think that is partly because people like my dad, when I asked him if he was a Christian, answered 'Of course I am, I mean I'm not a Muslim am I?' These days people can opt to identify as an atheist or agnostic in a way my dad couldn't. I also think that the internet is fulfilling spiritual and community desires in a way that church services do. I wonder how much of the church in the uk has migrated onto the internet...?
26 comments:
Thanks for the heads up Lesley, I think it's very strange to quote a poll without providing a link, and I've commented.
If Britain is becoming more secular, perhaps we need to reclaim the term. The New Atheists seem to think a secular society is one that rejects religion. In fact, most countries with a secular constitution see secularism as protecting religion. I am preparing a blog post with more detail and will let you know when I post it if I think on.
Hi Lesley,
I didn't know you took GQ magazine. How very liberal minded of you. Keep sending in the pics. I'm sure it won't be long before this section is supplemented by Hottest Vicar of the Week :)
Lesley, Johann Hari has an agenda to denigrate religious belief. This is not the first article he has written for GQ on this theme. So of course he publicises the 'surveys' which support his view rather than those which don't. And as Church Mouse points out commenting on a similar poll http://tinyurl.com/2eff9vx which showed religiosity was very low in rich nations, the answer you get depends very much on the question you ask (and I say that as one who was trained as a social scientist!
Hi Chris,
"The New Atheists seem to think a secular society is one that rejects religion" - No, quite wrong. That's what Christians think New Atheists seem to think. You being a case in point :) We (atheists new and old) know what it means, and you too would know that we know, if only you knew more about New Atheists, and old atheists.
"In fact, most countries with a secular constitution see secularism as protecting religion." - Try telling that to Christians in America, with it's very purposeful secular constitution. I can't figure out why even having such a specific constitution isn't clear enough. Oh, hold on. Got it. After centuries of selectively reading the Bible Christians are primed to read a constitution and see in it the very opposite of what is written.
Lesley,
I'm afraid I have to ask for clarification again. When you say 'damning', who or what do you think is being damned? The nation, for it's loss of faith? Or the remaining Christians, for this reason, "Their case was too weak, their opposition to divorce and abortion and gay people too cruel, their evidence for their claims nonexistent." It does sound a little like role reversal; you know, the rapture of irreligion, and the left behind of the faithful, stuck at the bus stop on a cold wintery day not knowing the last bus has been cancelled.
This point is right, "...it's only natural that we should dismantle the massive amounts of tax money and state power that are given to the religious. It's a necessary process of building a secular state, where all citizens are free to make up their own minds.", which will make it fair for all. But I can understand the fear in the CoE at losing privilege.
When I read this and what followed, "Really? Let's list some of the ways in which Christians and other religious groups are given special privileges,..." I realised that it was religious privilege that the article was damning after all.
This was particularly damning of Mormons in '78, "Until 1978, the Mormon Church said black people didn't have souls. (They only changed their mind the day this was made illegal, and God niftily appeared to their leader to say they were ensouled after all.)"
This "In response, Carey and the Church of England demanded Christians be allowed to break the law" and the recent nonsense at the Gen Synod continues to be damning of the CoE now. And don't get me started on RC and Islam.
Why do we have to resort to law to demand equality from religions? Is it only the religious and the BNP that retain prejudices? If I had amagic wand...Oops! Have I just made another comparison that the religious won't like? "How dare you compare the wicked and unjustified xenophobic racism with our quaint and cosy practice of putting women in their rightful Biblical place and our love for homosexuals, despite the their evil homosexual practices."
Christians are often quick to tell us of their valiant role in the abolition of slavery and their many other fights against injustice. OK all Christians, put up or shut up. Stop all prejudice and privilege - voluntarily! Let the ABC call for this now (I won't hold my breath - he'd rather have Sharia). Let's move to a secular nation, in education and government, that's equal to all. You'll be surprised how quickly atheists lose interest in your religion. Hold on. That's precisely what Christians are afraid of isn't it. Silly me.
Ron Murphy says:
"We (atheists new and old) know what it means, and you too would know that we know, if only you knew more about New Atheists, and old atheists."
Interesting. If nobody is allowed to critique anyone else without a thorough understanding of their viewpoint, it's going to cut down ill informed articles like Johann Haris's.
You can't have it both ways. Either we are all allowed to say what we think - which is the essence of a free society (as is freedom of belief) - even if our view is not an informed one, or we should just stop talking about things we don't have an in depth knowledge of completely.
I'm also interested that you claim to speak for all atheists - the atheists I know have a range of opinions about faith, just as there is a range of opinion in most viewpoints.
Hi Lesley,
You'r not using imprecatory prayer to curse my comments by any chance :)? This damned 414 error. Maybe be it's due punishment for the eternal sin of being verbose. Never mind. I've replied, at length, here, to you, Chris, and Preacherwoman.
Hi Pam,
"If nobody is allowed to critique anyone else..." - Did I say that? You really should read my post, the bit about selective reading. I was quite happy to see Chris's viewpoint, and was equally happy to correct it. Now, if I was to take your tack I could now complain about your complaint about me - but I won't. Why do you see critique of a statement that favours your point of view tantamount to censorship - selective reading.
"without a thorough understanding of their viewpoint" - On thorough understanding of viewpoints I refer you back to the willingness to take Sam Harris out of context elsewhere.
"we are all allowed to say what we think" - Yes, and free to say what we think about what you think, which includes correcting mistakes. If you read my post you'll see I agree with the point about the data in the article, which you are keen to point out. Got any comments on the hypocrisy in claims of persecution?
"I'm also interested that you claim to speak for all atheists" - Not at all, I'm just recognising the most common aspect of atheism - the lack of belief in god, that mostly is coincident with a free-thought secular agenda.
"the atheists I know have a range of opinions" - That's a refreshing view, and not one I hear often. It's usually the religious that complain about atheists lumping all theists together, while at the same time associating all atheists with Stalin, Hitler and Mao.
I'm interested in talking to and learning from people of all shades of opinion, which I suppose is how I have discovered that there is a range of opinion behind every simplistic label.
(It's a bit ironic that in commending me for this you have made a blanket statement about 'the religious' in order to accuse them (us?) of lumping atheists together!)
Some people can't cope with listening to alternative views and some people find it adds to their knowledge and understanding. I think that's more to do with personality than belief system or point of view.
On a site like the Ship of Fools you will find open and closed minded people across the spectrum of views.
I'm often rebuked for both making generalisations and over long comments. If I spelled out every specific category to which a comment applied, well, I can't do miracles. That's your teams department isn't it :)
Oops.. I started another disagreement! Thanks for your thoughts all..
I am sorry Ron, about the posting of comments - when I posted the last one that failed of yours it told me it was too long, but still posted it.. not sure what is going on there..
Looking forwards to being Hottest Vicar of the week - perhaps you can recommend me? To answer your question, I think someone sent me the article.
I have a question for you - if one Christian states something publicly, then do you take it as read that Christians believe it? (Genuine question). And if one Christian states the opposite then do you then declare that Christians believe the opposite? Or are you more cynical than that and use the one that suits you best?
Btw you have great faith in my power of prayer.. I'll start praying that your comments get posted :)
Hi Lesley,
If someone tells me they think something to be the case then I have to weigh it up against many factors. Scepticism and trust in statements made is simply something learned. But there is always some scepticism - or it might be better to say critical thinking - even when reading statements from what might be considered one's own side. Despite the the great variety in religious belief, and the much less variety in atheism, I find atheists being more critical of each other than I do religious people.
In Alan's post that you link to I can rely on my estimate, if I think that's sufficient - and I estimate that across all Christians around the world Alan's view of non-privilege is a minority view; but within UK CoE it's a less confident estimate that he's still in a minority, and that it might be a close call. I don't for example, get the impression that most of UK CoE wants to give up privilege - they're certainly quiet about it if they are the majority.
It gets more interesting when the theist tries to tell me what atheists think, and I presume for theists when atheists try to tell them what theists think. Now the only difference here is that there's generally a greater variety of religious belief than atheistic non-belief. For example, some theists believe in transubstantiation, some not; some in the resurrection of Jesus, some not; some that Islam is the one true faith, some not, etc. (this could be a very long list). But most or all atheists don't believe in anything on that very long list.
...
...
So, atheists can only make so many genuinely generalised statements about religious belief. Most statements that atheists make about religious belief will only apply to a sub-set of the religious community. But we can't keep adding caveats to every statement. Can you imagine a conversation with Christians, where I want to say that there is good evidence for the age of the earth being billions of years old, and I have to add all the caveats for every Christian that doesn't believe that; or if I object to transubstantiation, and have to add the caveat that I'm not applying it to CoE. It's just nuts.
We need to be able to make specific points about beliefs held by some religious people, without adding the caveats all the time - we know it's a general statement, but we know it doesn't apply to all theists; so how come theists don't get that and have to keep complaining "Not my religion." If we raise an objection to some religious point, and it's not your religion, then just say, I agree to that point. It's an unreasonable complaint to say, "That's not my religion. You obviously don't understand religion."
Nearly every objection to Dawkins's The God Delusion is of this kind. It's not necessarily that we don't understand your religion; we might just not be addressing your religion at that time. Every statement that is uttered by an atheist about religion is going to result in someone popping their head up and claiming "Not my religion."
...
...
As a contrast, it should be dead easy for a theist to make generalised statements about atheism:
1) Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods
2) Secularism is the separation of church and state, with no privilege for any one world view.
3) Atheists are mostly secularists, but theists can be too.
4) Atheism mostly isn't a faith position - though it is possible to be an atheist from a position of faith.
5) Atheism mostly isn't an absolute belief there is not God, but the lack of evidence makes it closer than agnosticism.
6) Agnosticism is about being quite undecided about God.
7) Atheism and agnosticism overlap to some extent.
Now, all these aren't that far apart, and are nothing like as varied as religious beliefs. So it's surprising theists get them wrong so often. Atheism is a religion - wrong! Claiming there have been evil atheist systems is comparable to claiming evil has been done in the name of religion - wrong!
There are some statements where there is more variation. Atheists want to abolish religion - mostly wrong. Atheists are anti-all-religion - mostly wrong. Atheists are anti-some-religion - mostly right.
But even here you will find that there is common ground when the atheism is rooted in liberal ideas of freedom of expression and thought - which is the type of atheism you'll end up debating mostly. Why? Because it's those atheists that care about freedom and equality, and are debating with you because they see the lack of freedom and equality in (some aspects of some) religions (there's your token caveat).
I'm not sure that we are becoming more secular. In fact, my feeling is that there is more spirituality, and spirituality closer to the surface than at any time in my life. That said, people fight shy of organised religion and are frightened of anything which smacks of dogmatism on the way to extremism.
Expressions of Christianity online will never be a substitute for that messy, infuriating & ultimately rewarding business of shared spiritual community life which is church.
Hi Richard Littledale,
It is difficult to be certain of what's happening, and even more difficult to determine the outcome.
The post WWII imperialism fades as the world becomes more global and power balances change, but still commits the odd faux pas. Non-Western imperialism influence African, South America and the Middle East. New independent nations find there voice, but many are stuck with ancient cultural influences, especially the Islamic world. This clashes with the more secular but still imperialist behaviour of Western and Eastern powers. Multi-culturalism sparks concern as the West becomes accomodationist in a post-modern relativist backlash to it's own imperialism. Religious fundamentalism: 9/11, continued education issues about evolution in America, cause a resurgence response from atheists, begetting New Atheism in thenew century. Moderate theism either keeps quiet about fundamentalist religion, or even sides with it - e.g. condemnation of Rushdie and the Mohammed cartoons. New Atheism sees this and attacks moderate religion too, for its complicity. Modern liberal and moderate Christianity responds, objects to New Atheism, and very slowly begins to distance itself from fundamentalist religions. Belatedly moderate Islam starts to find a voice.
Who knows were it will lead. All interesting stuff. We live in interesting times. But I guess that's always been the case for everyone. Don't you just love life! Come on. The after life has to be a drag after this :)
I am a mainstream Christian, and I have to say that Ron's last three comments are very laudable.
I offer my own thoughts here in response, in dialogue rather than attempted rebuttal:
(1) From purely anecdotal experience, lots of atheists DON'T imply "some but of course not all" when they criticise 'Christian' beliefs.
In a recent debate with two professional colleagues, I was from the word go pelted with questions like “why do you think the world is 6000 years old when science says it's not?” and various other beliefs I disclaimed – to no avail, alas! My responses were taken to mean, at best, what *I* believed in, not what 'Christians' believe in. The latter they reserved the right to define for themselves.
I complained that this was a straw man argument: arguing against positions that I (and many other Christians) do not hold. I tried to get to the root of the matter: Christianity cannot be externally defined as 'whatever people who self-define as Christians believe in' in the same way that 'liberalism' is rarely defined as 'what people who self-define as liberals believe in'.
But this just brought the response "well, who are YOU to say what is Christianity and what isn't?" and they returned to their American fundamentalists and Taliban suicide bombers etc.
I skim-read the first few chapters of the book ‘The Christian Delusion’ in Blackwells the other day. The author (a former preacher) moaned that, when faced with his criticisms, Christians simply “reinvent” their faith accordingly, rather than give it up.
I thought this comment was quite telling, for it showed how the author saw Christianity as akin to a settled scientific theory now being tortuously contorted to make it fit new evidence and avoid falsification.
Many Christians, on the other hand, would see the faith as more akin to science itself: fallible man’s (necessarily provisional and so changing) attempts to grasp an unchanging, eternal, external Truth. Einstein changed our understanding of gravity, but gravity itself is not physically different from Newton’s day; similarly, Barth changed our understanding of God, but God Himself is not different from in Hegel’s day.
.......
(2) “Christianity”, as Rowan Williams once said, “is something that it is cool to be ignorant about.” I would say there is a genuine fear that the man in the street (who would probably say “I don’t believe in God, but I suppose I believe in something… I would consider myself a spiritual person, yes, but not religious”) doesn’t even know what Christianity is.
This is perhaps due to combination of (i) insufficient education about metaphysics in general (not even religious metaphysics: Sartre would suffice!) (ii) how ‘religion’ is often taught from the outside as “things that other people believe” (as if Christianity is merely about intellectual assent to certain unproved propositions); (iii) disproportionate media attention on things like homosexual ordination etc.; and (iv) the media attention paid to atheists arguing with (some but not all) Christians – usually fundamentalists – whom the general public then takes to be typical of all Christians.
(3) I don’t want to debate whether atheists or Christians are more self-critical; except that I think atheists could be more self-critical, in particular with regard to:
-ad hominem attacks labelling Christians sexist, homophobic, hateful, etc.
-the notion that atheism and/or relativism is or should be the default position for everyone.
-violation of Hume’s classic is/ought distinction (i.e. you can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’) by some attempts to create a non-theistic morality
-use of ad hoc, post facto arguments when developing non-theistic morality (especially in evolutionary psychology)
-the idea that scientists have the right to make authoritative proclamations on matters of metaphysics
-holding it axiomatic that there is no truth, indeed, no reality, other than can be proven by science. “Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent” indeed!
Of course, I hasten to add, the above criticisms are of some, not all atheists!
(PS this is not Richard Littledale but a different Richard)
Thanks all, that is a really interesting debate. I wonder whether there is a way forward, it feels very harsh when atheists appear to be ridiculing Christianity on issues that are held by a tiny minority
Hi Richard II,
"I was from the word go pelted with questions like "why do you think the world is 6000 years old when science says it's not?" and various other beliefs I disclaimed..." - Mmmm, they would be of the Piss-Take Atheism variety then.
"Barth changed our understanding of God, but God Himself is not different from in Hegel’s day." - Akin to science? OK, still non-existent, given the lack of evidence then.
"education about metaphysics" - How would this help people have faith? And in which religion?
"how 'religion' is often taught from the outside " - I don't understand this. Do you mean atheists are teaching religion? I thought religion was always taught from the inside?
"disproportionate media attention on things like homosexual ordination" - Let's see, a Christianity that isn't very Christian to a sub-set of its own group - disproportionate?
"the media attention paid to atheists arguing with (some but not all) Christians – usually fundamentalists – whom the general public then takes to be typical of all Christians." - Atheist will argue many points about Christianity (and other religions). Do you have evidence that any of this is taken out of context? For example, when atheists argue about the age of the earth with Creationists, do the public think all Christians are Creationists?
...
...
"ad hominem attacks labelling Christians sexist, homophobic..." - It's not ad hominem. It would be ad hominem if I were to use a mathematician's homophobia to discredit his math theory - in other words trying to influence the debate by an attack on his character instead of attacking his theory itself. In the case you state the homophobia and sexist is the point being attacked.
"the notion that atheism and/or relativism is or should be the default position for everyone." - Of course atheism is the default case, as is a-fairyism, a-FSM-ism - in other words, our default position is not to believe anything we are either not informed about, or for which there is insufficient evidence. This is sort of the point Dawkins makes about 'Christian children'; they are not. All children are by default atheists, since they do not have a belief in God, or much else for that matter as far as we can tell.
"violation of Hume's classic is/ought distinction (i.e. you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is') by some attempts to create a non-theistic morality" - This is a bogus one, which I'll go into elsewhere. But I'd be happy to hear why you can't get an 'ought' from an 'is'. In fact I'd like to hear what you think an 'ought' is.
"use of ad hoc, post facto arguments when developing non-theistic morality (especially in evolutionary psychology)" - Examples? What other morality is there? Again, you need to be specific about what your morality, your 'ought', is.
"the idea that scientists have the right to make authoritative proclamations on matters of metaphysics" - Well, they are as entitled and as qualified as anyone. In fact many of them, such as cosmologists and physicists in general, are about as informed about metaphysical questions as anyone. But any specific examples?
"holding it axiomatic that there is no truth, indeed, no reality, other than can be proven by science." - OK, what methodology do you use to establish truth and reality?
Hi Lesley,
I'm happy to ridicule Christianity on issues that apply to most Christians. Do you have any example issues that are held by the majority of Christians? Given the variety of belief expressed by visitors here I'd say all Christians are in a minority of one, so complaining that atheists tackle minority Christian issues doesn't really wash.
Reminds me of a church where they said to the vicar that they felt hypocritical standing for the whole creed, and could they stand up and sit down during it depending on whether they believed it or not..
Can you not simply discuss a belief without attributing it to everyone? Personally, I would worry if all Christians believed the same - we are all individuals, and it would suggest brainwashing.
I think Christians believe:
- the Bible is a source of inspiration
- that Jesus is fully human and divine
- that Jesus died and was resurrected (although what that means differs)
- in the Trinity (again that differs)
- in God as a personality who loves
- in the journey towards loving others and loving God
- in the benefit of prayer
Post a Comment