Who's winning? Religion or rationality?

[ruckenheim]

Hi.

The recent 'wave' of high profile skeptics (Dawson, Penn & Teller, Robin Williams, David Attenborough etc.) and a lot of media focus via newspapers, documentaries, books, youtubes and material on the usenet are perhaps enough to see a small shift away from religion, especially in young people.

Any data supporting this?

Please share your thoughts.

[Susan Gerbic]

I love Robin Williams, is he a skeptic also?

I find young people are mostly non-religious, but go back to their religious roots when they have children. Just a rebellion kind of thing.

I think that skeptics are making a small dent in the overall religious world. As an atheist I think I receive less distaste when people discover my beliefs, but then that could just be me?

I almost think that the influx of new religions into American mainstream are helping. They are helping get the message out that we need to become more global in our thinking, and they are helping the Christians circle the wagons to fight out over anything that feels like they are having their precious beliefs attacked.

I don't have the answer here, but hopefully someone will...


Susan

[PAC]

The good news is:

Raised in the 50's and 60's there was musch less rational discussion about religion than I see now. Things are going in a good direction.

The bad news is:

As a college student of the late 60's and early 70's I thought we had made some lasting changes in our society. At that time I could never have envisioned the influence of George Bush, The Moral Majority, the Christian right, etc. To be honest, our society scares the hell out of me!

[Myriad]

I can't provide any statistics, but I'd like to try to add some perspective to your question.

A long time ago, not long after starting college, I read a joke "guide to college life" distributed by a campus humor club. It included a section called something like "This Year's Guide to Fashion," which went something like this:

The hot style on campus for guys this fall is a shirt and a pair of pants. This is a popular look for girls too, but girls might want to substitute a sweater top for the shirt, or a skirt for the pants...

The point is, there's change and there's change. There's "this year's hot style" and there's what everyone actually wears, shirts and pants. The slow changes that people take for granted ("girls can wear pants now?") are the more important. Fundamentalist Christianity was hot for a while. A progressive backlash (frontlash?) will now be hot for another while. But the real underlying change is slow. Religion and Rationality aren't in a sprint. Even calling it a marathon is exaggeration. Think of two continents having a drift race.

Nor are religion and rationality the only worldviews in the race. Here's an update from the announcer:

Way out in front, holding onto the lead it gained with its sustained surge of strength through the last century, but starting to show some signs of fatigue, is Impending Secular Doom. In second place, still gaining slowly on ISD after appearing seemingly out of nowhere in the 1980s, is Pure Noise. In the pack, Corporate Policy has been moving up and is now neck and neck with Clique Nation. And bringing up the rear, it looks like... yes, indeed... Rationality has caught up a step on Religion!

Respectfully,
Myriad

[DOC]

Who's winning? Religion or rationality?

Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined (and I would agree). He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614

[joobz]

Who's winning? Religion or rationality?

Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined. He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614
:tr:

[Magyar]

I don't think so. As Susan indicated, the influx of other religions and the popularity of new age stuff among the young is diluting the waters from the homogenous xian front.

The new age stuff is perhaps less in your face, but it's still as full of woo and intolerance to rational thinking as xians. Just visit some martial arts forums I go to and see all the qi/chi , accupuncture and herbal medicine stuff discussed for example.

[Cosmo]

Who's winning? Religion or rationality?

Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined. He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614

Doc, are you actively trying to avoid learning anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)?

[DOC]

:tr:

My post was related to the topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation.

[DOC]

Doc, are you actively trying to avoid learning anything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)?

My post was related to the thread topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation.

And in answer to your non-topic related question, No, are you.

Don't you think its important to learn that the man who many believe is the greatest scientist of all time wrote 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation.

[joobz]

My post was related to the topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation.
I am simply informing that you seem to be a troll. What you do with this information is up to you.

The reason for this is that you had made this appeal to authority before. And were corrected, before. But you repeated the same foolish logical fallicy. This is the behavior of the troll.

[Hokulele]

Considering that Newton did not invent calculus, what exactly is DOC's point?

[Achán hiNidráne]

This is the behavior of the troll.

Or the behavior of your average Christian.

[joobz]

My post was related to the thread topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation.

And in answer to your non-topic related question, No, are you.

Don't you think its important to learn that the man who many believe is the greatest scientist of all time wrote 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation.
And Isaac_Newton also had mercury poisoning, which is believed to be why he was a bit crazy.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Considering that Newton did not invent calculus, what exactly is DOC's point?

It's simple,

1. Newton was a respected scientist.
2. Newton believed in God. (And alchemy, not to mention unicorns.)
Ergo: God exists.

Errrrrrr.... yeah, I don't see the "logic" either.

[Cosmo]

My post was related to the thread topic. Yours is not, that's a rules violation.

You're funny :)

And in answer to your non-topic related question, No, are you.

Oh. You've admitted that you're not trying to learn anything.

...I kinda wasn't expecting that response. Well, I guess it clarifies a fair bit about you...

[Achán hiNidráne]

You're funny :)


I'm not laughing.

[Cosmo]

I'm not laughing.

Then you're making the (fatal?) mistake of taking DOC seriously. :)

[Kopji]

He studied Hebrew scholarship and ancient and modern theologians at great length, and became convinced that Christianity had departed from the original teachings of Christ.


He's not off to a blazing endorsement of the Christian enterprise.

[articulett]

Religions is more virulent-- they promise you "happily ever after" if you believe the right thing strongly enough and eternal torment if you don't. But rationality works. And the internet destroys the secrecy and mystery needed to keep the faithful from realizing that people have been making up this crap in all sorts of infinite varieties for eons. Doc is the bleating moans of a dying breed. As science finds out more... woo has fewer and few curtains to hide behind.

And with spokespeople like Haggard, Bush, Falwell, Phelps, Osama, Chopra, Ratzinger,DOC, plumjam, and T'ai-- religions seems to have turned into a club few young people will want to be a part of. Stupid, old, and sexist make for very poor leaders and role models. I think everyone is ready for a permanent changing of the guard.

[Dorian Gray]

Odd - second time today that I've used the same post in two threads, but:

Rational arguments don't work on religious people - if they did, there'd be no religious people. - House

[ruckenheim]

I love Robin Williams, is he a skeptic also?


There's a lot of skepticism in his live show on broadway.

Here's an example on youtube: /watch?v=HIMCH12zAYY

The bit about Jerry Christ, brother of Jesus, cracks me up every time! :D

[PBTree]

I'm sorry to say that religion is winning in this land. Our prime minister (who by the way is a woo) has decided to give $40million so that the catholic youth can all meet at a race course in Sydney. How ironic is that. The catholic (give me your money and let me abuse your children) church, one of the richest businesses in the world and the taxpayer has to give them all that money.

Rationality has gone down the drain.

[ruckenheim]

So, what do you suppose rationals have to do to stem this tidal wave?

[Darth Rotor]

So, what do you suppose rationals have to do to stem this tidal wave?

Seppoku is an option, though perhaps not what you had in mind.

DR

[Safe-Keeper]

Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined (and I would agree). He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it.Repeat for Chinese, Indian and Islamic scholars of old, and the creators of the breathtaking Great Wall of China and the pyramids of Egypt and the Aztec empire. These people were smart, no question about it. All of them probably adhered to their culture's beliefs in some way or another.

[rocketdodger]

Don't you think its important to learn that the man who many believe is the greatest scientist of all time wrote 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation.

Don't you think its important to learn that he was actually a heretic?

[H3LL]

DOC's post is an indicator of how things are changing.

A person like DOC is a liar for Jesus and does not care for discussion or examination and dogmaticaly refuses to learn from their errors however many times they are pointed out to them.

They have earned, in their own deluded imagination, their evangelical brownie points and to them the job is done. Repeating lies as frequently as possible would seem to be their only purpose.

Luckily, more people immediately see the lies for exactly what they are. And it is thanks to people like DOC that phrases like "Lying for Jesus" gain a more common useage and become instantly understood.

What people like DOC are totally unaware of is that they is not going to convince any skeptic with lies and the faithful are already lying for Jesus in their own right. They will certainly manage to swing the opinion of the fence-sitter that dislikes being lied to.

I'm pretty sure the fence-sitters will not drop off the fence on DOC's side.

.

[Safe-Keeper]

I don't think religion is dying out any time soon. I think lots of people need it, and need it too much to let go of it easily. And religious thought seems to be part of our natural instincts/urges. With these two combined, I think religion will stay for a long while yet.

It'd be nice, however, if I lived to see only a single country where religion was actually completely gone. Not oppressed or hidden or whatever, but actually nonexistent. Not that the rest of the world would look at them and go 'wow, we need to try that!' - it seems the only atheistic countries getting attention, for some reason (very likely involving fundie propaganda:p) is the USSR and People's Republic of China.

[maxpower1227]

I'm somewhat saddened by people who feel the need to not only reject religion, but to be openly hostile to it and as if it's a scourge that needs to be gotten rid of.

I used to be a full-fledged Christian, but the more I learn, and the more I just think about things, the more I find myself doubting whether there is ANY supernatural reality. Certainly the Bible is not historically accurate, and it's likely no religious text is. While that fact alone doesn't prove the overall concept of an afterlife/etc false, it would be a blow to most believers.

However, whatever I ultimately believe, I can't help but have contempt for people who actively seek to purge religion from the human experience. First of all, it is futile, as people will always have a fascination with where we came from, what happens after death, etc. It also brings hope and comfort to many of the less fortunate, or to normal people during their darkest times.

My feeling is this: even if I become a full-fledged atheist, if one of my loved ones who happens to be deeply religious is on their death and the only thing comforting them is the thought of getting to see their deceased loved ones again - if some jack*** comes in as they lay dying and says "terribly sorry, but there is no afterlife, and you're just going to rot in the ground. Look, I have proof...", they'd probably be missing a few teeth.

There is a place in this world for both religion and rationality, as long as a balance is maintained. Sometimes it's best to consider what's best for the masses, rather than what's correct.

(Side note: Are we really counting Robin Williams as a credible skeptic? What exactly makes him qualified to deal with any scientific or philosophical topics? Is it all the drugs he's taken? This seems kinda similar to touting Rosie or Charlie Sheen as a 9/11 skeptic)

[Autolite]

First of all, it is futile, as people will always have a fascination with where we came from, what happens after death, etc. It also brings hope and comfort to many of the less fortunate, or to normal people during their darkest times.

This is pretty much the way I see it also. Religion, and all paranormal belief for that matter, is here to stay. It's all BS of course, but it's an integral part of our existence. I remember reading something in the Skeptics Dictionary that illustrated the point quite clearly. Basically it asserted than most humans need irrational belief in their live simply to make life tolerable ...

[Apology]

There's still more of them than there are of us.

[H3LL]

I'm somewhat saddened by people who feel the need to not only reject religion, but to be openly hostile to it and as if it's a scourge that needs to be gotten rid of..............

This is pretty much the way I see it also. Religion, and all paranormal belief for that matter, is here to stay. It's all BS of course, but it's an integral part of our existence. I remember reading something in the Skeptics Dictionary that illustrated the point quite clearly. Basically it asserted than most humans need irrational belief in their live simply to make life tolerable ...

That would be all well and good if it was not harmful as well. It is and should be challenged.

Also, if some religions were not openly hostile to scientific advance and in some cases are, have and will kill to further their cause, it should be challenged. It is fair to say that some religions were hostile first.

I don't accept that it's "here to stay". Children are born atheist and to suggest that it is difficult or impossible to overcome built-in instincts is obviously not so by looking out of the window. It could be argued that the desire to enslave others is "part of our existence". happily, slavery has mostly gone as an acceptable institution.

(Side note: Are we really counting Robin Williams as a credible skeptic? What exactly makes him qualified to deal with any scientific or philosophical topics?

This is typical of the use of argument from authority, often seen from the religious and also typical of the woolly/fallacious thinking that is encouraged within religious dogma as many religions desire to be the only 'authoritative' source.

I'm in no position to comment on Robin Williams as a sceptic, however, his scepticism is judged by what is presented. Drug use, what colour hair he has, qualifications or how famous he is is irrelevant. If his, or anybody's arguments are sound...they are of value. When his arguments show little or no scepticism, it will be self evident.


.

[Gregoire]

I don't accept that it's "here to stay". Children are born atheist and to suggest that it is difficult or impossible to overcome built-in instincts is obviously not so by looking out of the window. It could be argued that the desire to enslave others is "part of our existence". happily, slavery has mostly gone as an acceptable institution.




A child certainly has to be taught about a god to end up believing in a god, but magical thinking and over reading patterns seems to be the natural state of childhood. Growing up and learning to think rationally, while bringing many obvious advantages, does seem to take a bit of work. So I while I would agree that organized religion is certainly on the decline, isn't it just being replaced by other superstitions?

[Gregoire]

I'm somewhat saddened by people who feel the need to not only reject religion, but to be openly hostile to it and as if it's a scourge that needs to be gotten rid of.

I used to be a full-fledged Christian, but the more I learn, and the more I just think about things, the more I find myself doubting whether there is ANY supernatural reality. Certainly the Bible is not historically accurate, and it's likely no religious text is. While that fact alone doesn't prove the overall concept of an afterlife/etc false, it would be a blow to most believers.

However, whatever I ultimately believe, I can't help but have contempt for people who actively seek to purge religion from the human experience. First of all, it is futile, as people will always have a fascination with where we came from, what happens after death, etc. It also brings hope and comfort to many of the less fortunate, or to normal people during their darkest times.

My feeling is this: even if I become a full-fledged atheist, if one of my loved ones who happens to be deeply religious is on their death and the only thing comforting them is the thought of getting to see their deceased loved ones again - if some jack*** comes in as they lay dying and says "terribly sorry, but there is no afterlife, and you're just going to rot in the ground. Look, I have proof...", they'd probably be missing a few teeth.

There is a place in this world for both religion and rationality, as long as a balance is maintained. Sometimes it's best to consider what's best for the masses, rather than what's correct.



If someone believes in a religion and does not try to push it on others, I have no quarrel with them. Similarly, if a baseball player had to wear his "lucky shirt" whenever he played, again I would not argue with him unless asked by him to give an opinion. But I would use both examples as a barometer of the state of rationality and critical thinking in our society. And that would be the way, in my opinion, to come up with an answer to the OP.

I agree that arguing about religion is not a very fruitful enterprise. And in the example you give, I would even call it malicious. But I do think it is worth it to teach critical thinking to others in a neutral setting in other contexts and let them ultimately figure it out for themselves.

[Puppycow]

Who's winning? Religion or rationality?

Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined (and I would agree). He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614

On the other hand Martin Luther said:
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason. "
and
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God. "

He didn't think that reason and religion were compatible, did he?

[Puppycow]

Considering that Newton did not invent calculus, what exactly is DOC's point?

He didn't? Leibniz also came up with it independently, but of course this is a red herring.

It doesn't matter if Newton also wrote about religion or if he was a believer. He some very good ideas which have survived and some other ideas that turned out to be wrong. There's probably a good reason why no one bothered much with his writings about the Book of Revelation.

[Puppycow]

Odd - second time today that I've used the same post in two threads, but:

Rational arguments don't work on religious people - if they did, there'd be no religious people. - House

This is very true. I think it is true of people in general, but especially religious people.

Put religion aside for a second and consider the world of advertising.

Modern ads don't often make appeals to reason, and they certainly don't ever make a reason-only appeal. It's at least 90% image and emotion, and often 100% image and emotion. If appeals to reason worked as advertisement, that's what advertisers would use. They use what has been shown by experience to work.

So, to 'win' as it were, it is important to make it cool to be a skeptic. It has to be emotionally rewarding somehow. It's no fun to be right but hated.

[Gregoire]

Who's winning? Religion or rationality?

Well the very rational Issac Newton, the inventor of calculus, believed religion and rationality were intertwined (and I would agree). He didn't write 300,000 words on the Book of Revelation just for the heck of it.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2614

Newton, as brilliant as he was, was still a product of his time. He was dealing with the available data that was known back then.

Richard Dawkins actually had a lot to say about this issue in The Blind Watchmaker. Before Darwin's time, for instance, he points out one certainly could make the case that there must be a creator somewhere. Things appear to be designed just as it appears that the sun revolves around the earth. But with new information, which comes in all the time, we now know otherwise.

[Apology]

I also get to decide what I think is right and what I think is wrong, and get to choose my own punishment when I'm wrong (provided that whatever I did wasn't criminal in some way :blush:). This usually involves an admission of guilt, an apology to the wounded party, and an effort to make amends. I just cut out all the middlemen. It's a lot faster and a lot less painful for everyone. I don't need God to do the right thing.

[drzeus99]

There's a lot of skepticism in his live show on broadway.

Here's an example on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIMCH12zAYY

The bit about Jerry Christ, brother of Jesus, cracks me up every time! :D


That's some funny shtuff !!

[ruckenheim]

I'm glad I started this one, really interesting points all 'round - and no pie throwing just yet :)

I certainly agree that humans need spirituality or spiritual experiences, perhaps some sense of being one of the very smallest kegs in an enormous cosmic machinery. Personally, I get mine from stepping outside and have a look at a star-filled sky. It keeps me in check and makes me realise just how insignificant my own existence is in the broader picture. Then I hurry inside and try to figure out how to make sense of my puny little life. Perhaps if more people could find some spiritual experience in nature as is, or even within themselves and not having to deal with a lot of mythical baggage as well, we would all be better off?

I have a sense that we live in important times. But with an American president making faith-based decisions on behalf of everybody in the western world, it's really hard to ignore religion and how it affects us all on a global scale. Perhaps advocating a secular life style is key to a peaceful future.

With 84% of Americans "not prepared for an atheist president" (Gallup) it does seem a rational majority is far and away. I agree that secularism should up its PR-game and become more, shall we say, "sexy". But where's the money and the huge apparatus the opposition sits on going to come from?

"Freedom is the right to be who you are. Anybody or anything that prevents you from being who you are is the enemy of humanity"
- Bela Liptak