People are less and less religious. Why? What will change this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christphr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Poe’s law is strong with this one.
Spyridon said:
40.png
TheOldColonel:
. If it be that he also have a ghoulish look about him, long black lank hair combed behind the ears, bushy black eyebrows and heavy black moustache as did Vlad the Impal
Click to expand...
I’m seriously starting to wonder if you’re just trolling…

I’m more worried that you’re actually serious, however.
Click to expand...
 
I do know that life in the USA makes it very easy for one to be NON-religious. An American could ask, “Why should I be religious anyway? We have everything we need, what’s the point?” And I think we all have to struggle against these thoughts. However, once again, maybe this struggle is just a part of the natural course of life that a Christian lives. We are trying to struggle against the passions, whereas the non-religious don’t have to do that.

Hummm…I gather that you are attempting to state that the difference between those of a religious conviction and those without is passion?

I remember watching television a very long time ago. There was a program where a kid was wondering around the streets in a busy metropolitan area asking strangers for help and nearly everyone ignored him.
I guess the intention was to place all of us in a state of shock of how no one came around and shared some compassion?

Unfortunately, the majority of us below to the iGeneration. Hence, what is in it for me? Now, don’t blame this one on the younger generation. I see many older people that have no apparent friends or family and only seek the companionship of a pet! Now juxtapose that with religion and ask yourself how motivating is it towards inviting new people?

There are the “mega” churches and their success is in their ability to build a sense of community. One question that I cannot answer is; how successful are those organizations in bringing those individuals that feel lonely and despaired?

For those of us that grew up Catholic, we remember the rancorous delivery of any moral message. Yet, when we discovered years later the scandals that originated from the church, we were asked our deepest compassions. I think we all know someone that had children out of wedlock (back when that was a scandal), divorce in the family, a suicide or discovered that a family member has come forward regarding their sexual orientation? My question is; how did your family priest handle it?

We live in a time when we can propagate information within an instant. If we have been wronged by someone, we can quickly find sympathy. Unfortunately, if our spiritual journey is not media rich, it just may not hold our attention. Sadly, there is a lot of competition…
 
I hate to say it, but being afflicted in my own life has made me personally more spiritual and religious. It has pushed me towards God. So, strangely enough, that is a grace, but my nature is repulsed by it completely.

I think the same would probably go for a nation, too. But perhaps not always.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you thought correctly…
So, assuming that, think about what would make an otherwise “intelligent” person reply to those statements with a minimum of characters while exuding mockery at them?
 
What will change this?
Judgement Day.
Maybe it is sooner than we think.
 
I don’t think that it’s simply because the advancements of science or technology. It’s more that people confuse what questions/problems science/technology can answer with questions/problems that religion/philosophy can answer. Many people today say they believe in science, which has resulted in a new a pseudo-religion of Scientism which unfortunately is replacing true religion.

People who believe in scientism and want proof or evidence of God in order to believe, do not understand that God lives outside of time, space and the material world, and therefore, we can never have scientific evidence/proof that God exists. Only a philosophical approach can explain the metaphysical.

If we want to reverse the growing disbelief, we need to stop the science v. God debate. In fact, I think science can lead people to faith. In order to do that, we need to use science to understand the physical world and use philosophy to understand the metaphysical/moral/spiritual world.
 
It seems that young people are driven by faith in God but the youth in majority are not able to sacrifice in such vices as- free love, sexual relations outside of marriage, the marriage itself and commitment are perceived as unnecessary and burdensome.
However, today’s young people have a lot of things from Christianity- there are humanist aspirations, thirst for justice, solidarity with the oppressed, etc.
The mission of Christians is to guide the aspirations of young people in the right direction, certainly it is necessary to denounce sin, but also to seek new methods of evangelization for today’s youth.
 
Last edited:
pocaracas said:
Perhaps you thought correctly…

So, assuming that, think about what would make an otherwise “intelligent” person reply to those statements with a minimum of characters while exuding mockery at them?
Click to expand...
There are many reasons why people exude mockery instead of engaging rationally when they have the opportunity to do so.

The main reason I find is that they can’t respond rationally but have an emotional attachment to a certain ideology.

My answer as to why you responded in such a fashion?

Well that is a question that requires further observance of your level of comprehension.
 
Last edited:
Christphr said:
People are less and less religious. Why? What will change this?
Click to expand...
This is an interesting story that may give you some insight: Two centuries ago, there was a man who was fairly stable in the Christian faith. He went to church every sunday, prayed, and genuinely tried to build a relationship with God, however, as time progressed, he gradually started becoming more weary of the Christian doctrine. He argued that if his family and relatives who didn’t believe were hell-bound, God’s statement on love must be contradictory, and therefore–his religion, false. Despite this, the philosopher of old remained faithful–even if only by threads. Now, this philosopher had fallen madly in love with a beautiful Christian woman named Emma. Emma and the philosopher would have intimate, elaborate conversations on Christianity and the faith. They would both converse and philosophy with each other about all matters of the faith. Eventually, their love finally culminated into a marriage and in about 1841 AD, they had a baby girl named Annie. Annie was a sweet and loving young girl who always tried her hardest to please her parents and make them happy. It was her charity, along with her mother’s–that kept the philosopher’s faith afloat, even after the countless hardships Christianity gave him. For the first time since his marriage, the philosopher felt love. He loved this girl with all of his heart and soul, and she was a great source of happiness for him. Despite his seeming spiritual stabilizing and happiness, his little girl eventually fell sick in the year 1850 AD, and just one year after her sickness, passed away. It was due to this very moment, altogether combined with the burdens of his past, that he succumbed and snapped into undiluted unbelief. This man later went on to become one of the most significant and influential atheists this world has seen: His name is Charles Darwin.
 
From a letter by Charles Darwin two years before his death when he was asked if he was an atheist:.
In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.
Click to expand...
Also : https://publicdomainreview.org/2011/06/28/was-charles-darwin-an-atheist/
 
Last edited:
I read that before posting, and it still doesn’t change my points. Generic belief in a “god” isn’t salvific doctrine, it’s really not even Christian doctrine. Prior to this he was a Christian, but after Annie, he broke.
 
Yes my understanding was that he lost his Anglican faith due to two main reasons. One was the death of his child and the other was his idea of the Christian doctrine regarding salvation.

I remember reading about his deliberations while in a Hindu region of India and trying to square the idea that they were all going to Hell because they were not Christians.

The reason for my post was just that you named Charles Darwin as an atheist. Although many in common parlance assume Darwin was an atheist I think the record actually shows otherwise.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
Also an increasing belief that science and religion are contradictory.

People had a lot more faith when they believed that God personally gives them rain instead of the water cycle, for instance. Modern nations are usually more educated.
 
One of the reasons researchers believe atheism will be in decline worldwide by 2050 is due to low birthrates among them.

Another reason is that places like China are rapidly growing in religiosity, primarily trending towards Christianity, but Islam has seen a little bit of an increase in these areas as well. East Asia is going to become the most Christian part of the world sometime between 2030 and 2040.
 
Last edited:
Atheists in Developed East Asia and the West have long counted China in their numbers to make them look higher.
 
I agree but I think that perception has been taught erroneously. If you delve into the history of Catholic medieval science in both universities and medicine it is clear that the inquisition into the workings of the world was to find out how God did things.

The discovery of processes which showed how the world works did not rock their faith, it strengthened it.

Many kids that I taught in Catholic primary school already had received that false perception. They asked me who is right. Did God create the universe or was it the big bang. Like many such examples I point out that it was the church (through Father Georges Le Maitre) who enlightens us all into the way the universe works.

A very successful analogy that I find works with children is to ask them what or who starts a football match. Is it the referee or is it the whistle?

It makes sense to say the referee starts the game by blowing the whistle.

Like wise it makes sense to say God created the universe through the Big Bang and that He sends rain through the water cycle.

I think a lot of people have been educated incorrectly.

So for example :
Father Boscovich pioneered the way we look at he atom with regards to atomic particles held in fields of attraction, and repulsion at closer distances. He theorised that the different arrangements of these particles in the atoms gave the different elements and thus their characteristics. He pioneered this atomic thought while continuing to say the consecration at mass. Today incorrectly educated people have been taught to think that belief in transubstantiation is in conflict with knowledge of the atomic structure.

Similar with supposed Christian thoughts on history against the fossil record (Bishop Steno).
supposed Christian prayers that their unborn kids will be healthy in conflict with genetics (Monk Mendel).
supposed Christian thoughts on God’s providence and scientific law (Theologian Isaac Newton) etc etc.

I’ll give just one more example. Bishop Albert the Great theorised that people falling unconscious in underground caves and dying was because of colourless and odourless poisonous gases being released in underground caverns. Local people thought that it was due to demons in the caves. Albert suggested that if people were to go into the caves they should bring small animals with smaller lungs such as hamsters or squirrels. Because of their physiology the animal would pass out first and give warning that the people should leave the caves quickly. (Later miners would take canaries).

Todays false perception would be to say that Christianity thought that it was demons and science showed otherwise.

When you actually track down a lot of these claims they are found to be opposite to the anti science narrative.

Regards.
 
Last edited:
abucs said:
Like wise it makes sense to say God created the universe through the Big Bang and that He sends rain through the water cycle.
Click to expand...
Under the mighty assumption that there is a god at all to blow the Big Bang’s whistle.
But, just like science can’t probe beyond the Big Bang, you too can’t. So that’s all you’re left with: an assumption.
You may think you’ve arrived at it rationally, but no. You just buried it under a pile of other assumptions that, on first look, seem reasonable and intuitive… but, much like in special relativity and quantum mechanics, intuition at the level of a Big Bang should not be expected.
So it remains an assumption.

Your list of religious scientists is nice…
Steno –> 1638 – 1686
Mendel –> 1822 – 1884
Newton –> 1642 – 1726/27

Albert the Great –> 1200 – 1280, finally, someone in the so-called dark ages. And he postulated that something was making people breathe something noxious in caves. A rather peculiar problem for a bishop to delve upon, I’d say… but, glancing at his wikipedia page, he seems like he poked his nose on just about everything.

I’m curious about all the etc you mentioned.

Galileo? 1564[3] – 1642
Tycho Brahe? 1546 – 1601
Nicolaus Copernicus? 1473 – 1543
Avicenna? 980 – 1037… oooh Persian
abucs said:
Todays false perception would be to say that Christianity thought that it was demons and science showed otherwise.
Click to expand...
One man does not Christianity make. Back then, information spread was slow and superstition was everywhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top