From 1990 to 2008, Americans went from 90% believing that there was a personal God, to 70% that believe that there is a personal God. In the 2008 ARIS 12% of Americans identified with deism. Non-religion grew from 8.2% in 1990 to 15% in 2008. That rate of growth was high from 1990 to 2001, when it reached 14.1%, but slowed from 2001 to 2008.



It's called a "religious identification survey" because it asks the participants what religion they identify with. The science comes in the way they ask the questions, and in being open and upfront about their methods. The results of the survey are merely data.



And Jesus was only one dynamic leader. The Disciples were only a few dynamic leaders. Would you brush them off so easily?



I think it's just not that important - it's not like there are two cults of nonbelievers who yell at each other over Jesus being a myth or a copycat or even a real person who was made into a larger than life legend. What are we going to do? Schism? Get into a holy war over dogma? At the very worst we'll get into a lively debate as we buy each other a beer.


Your remark that this sort of bleeding of the Church has happened before is very true, but you don't have to go so far back to see it. I think it comes and goes in waves. The Age of Enlightenment in the 18th Century, the Golden Age of Freethought in the late 19th Century, and this current age (what ever the historians decide to call it) happening now.

These secular ages have all been in response to religious hard-lining. They have been a backlash. And each age predicted the death of religion.

It's like Screwtape said in his letters to his "dear nephew", humans are cyclic beings who live in the troughs and peaks in their ocean of life. We are unable to see the future so when we're in a trough all we see around us is water, and when we're on a peak, all we see around us is blue sky. I think CS Lewis hit something here. Each age, be it church or secular, believes it will be there forever, when it is merely at a peak.

The difference now, I believe, is that science and technology has been introduced into this equation. Technology allows us to go through these cycles much faster. And science acts like a "ratchet", holding us a little further away from pure belief each time we go through the process. In my opinion, this is why so many religious people deny the findings and methods of science.

I can agree that it was a shallow attempt at contradiction. I still find it "bad form" to argue in one direction then shift to another for the sake of a rational "gateway." Your Screwtape example was well taken.

I still think your interp of the Pew research is wrong however:

"The rise of the unaffiliated does not, however, mean that Americans are becoming less religious. Contrary to assumptions that most of the unaffiliated are atheists or agnostics, most described their religion “as nothing in particular.” Pew researchers said later projects would delve more deeply into their beliefs and practices and would try to determine if the unaffiliated remained so as they aged."

For more. . .see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/26religion.html

We are in a gray area of how a person self-identifies, making categorization difficult.

A movement from "religion" to "nothing in particular" does in fact mean that Americans are becoming less religious. Religious leaders do not teach that believing in a God but not ascribing to the tenets of the religion is a valid form of "religion".

The Pew Group is being cautious, but the conclusions are clear.

RC says it well: "The Pew Group is being cautious, but the conclusions are clear." And again: "A movement from 'religion' to 'nothing in particular' does in fact mean that Americans are becoming less religious."

If Americans were not becoming less religious, then they would still self-identify as religious at the same rate.

Part of the problem might arise from the lack of a generally accepted definition of "religion." I suspect there are scads of people out there who are not active members of any religious organizations or institutions, who have only vague thoughts about God or "spirituality," either frequently or infrequently, and who are what I would call "functional atheists": people who still "believe in God" but make no religious tradition an important part of their lives. These people would never identify themselves as nonreligious or as atheists, might call themselves "spiritual but not religious" on dating websites, probably still identify, but only loosely, with the religious tradition they grew up in, and so would say they have no particular religion. Active and practicing members of some religions might call these people nonreligious, while many atheists would call these people religious.

That there seem to be more and more of these people in the space between what is clearly religious and what is clearly nonreligious, as the Pew research group recognizes, does not mean that people are becoming less religious, in the sense that they are becoming self-identifying atheists. But it does mean that fewer and fewer people are self-identifying as religious. Hence the conclusion that Americans are becoming less religious.

But the Pew research group knows that if it were to state that conclusion clearly, based on the data available, problems with how people define "religion" and "atheism" would lead to accusations that they are misreading the data. So, as RC observes, they are cautious.

I can state this another way.

If I am observant in a religion, following all its tenets to the letter faithfully, would I consider someone who professes to belong to the same belief, but does not practice as I do, to be more or equally religious? No, I would consider them less religious.

I think any outside observer would agree -- those who observe the requirements of a religion are more religious than those who do not.

In addition, if someone does not follow my religious practices, could they be "more" or "equally" religious in some other way? No, because if I admit the possibility, then I am acknowledging that my religious practices are arbitrary and have no real religious meaning. The Apostle Paul had to really tap dance on this issue, presenting it as a paradigm shift on the part of God, as his Letter to the Galatians demonstrates. It made no sense, looked at with the broad view of time, but the cultural isolation of the time made it believable.

The trend towards irreligion will continue I think, because the irreligious population is continuing to grow as the most prosperous demographic in our Western society. Increasingly, the religious are the disaffected and dissatisfied in our society; they do not feel that they area a part of the progressive world of secularism, science, and responsible economic growth. As the disparity grows, believers will jump ship as they always have when the fallacies of their beliefs hit them where it most matters, the pocket book.

In order:


This was the original argument about the Pew research. I answered with this:


Now it has morphed into this:


I am unclear as to how the above answers anything. Actually, I think it feeds a non sequitor within the modality of your argument. Both Calladus and RC shift their definitions and morph the research to meet a "moving target" conclusion. The researchers are being cautious? How? Especially since they themselves rebutted your initial position.




I'll rephrase the non-seq.
Because Americans don't eat at McDonalds anymore, and American's don't prefer any "particular" fast food restaurant, Americans are eating less fast food.



The research doesn't speak to any of this eloquent insight into the framing of American religion. I'll continue:

Because Americans have now been confused and enlightened by the nature of Fast Food and it's definition (Subway, Panda Express etc.) They are less less interested in Fast Food and more healthy?



The Pew research group fears accusations from McDonalds.

A preemptive note: "you cannot be accused of Reductio Ad Absurdum if the other began with its twin brother"



Of course, that's why they have the value menu. But if they ever did try to "be a part" you would shut down the valet service, give them menus in which they could not read, put them at a table closest to the kitchen. Or in the case of science, tell them they don't have a reservation.

Sorry. No.

If you're going to start your rephrased non-seq with McDonalds, then for it to be accurate, the original statement would have had to have started with a specific religion, Lutherans for example.

You totally changed the structure of the assertion and then claimed it was wrong. Your claim that the initial argument is a non sequitur is actually the non sequitur.

To clarify, you seem to be asserting that somehow, dwindling religious numbers + plateauing atheist and agnostic numbers = the same or more religious numbers. Which is directly contrary to the data of the study.

What others are trying to say, I think, is that the number of religious people is declining, as per the numbers in the study, but that does not necessarily mean that the number of people who believe in a higher power are declining. I think you'd agree with me that spirituality is different than religiosity. There seems to be a leak in the equation that you're not accounting for.

So, trying to negate Peter's claim that "if Americans were not becoming less religious, then they would still self-identify as religious at the same rate," with your extended and awkward analogy is unnecessary and beside the point.

To simplify, if you start with 100 people, 90 Methodists and 10 atheists and 20 Methodists quit identifying as Methodists but keep believing in a god of some kind without the structure of a religion, then you end up with 70 Methodists, 20 spiritual folks, and 10 atheists. Therefore, a decline in religious numbers, a plateau of secular numbers, and all people are accounted for.

A very flawed analogy. A more correct one would be "because Americans no longer eat at McDonalds's or Burger King, or etc, because they no longer prefer fast food over other foods, they are eating less fast food"

You make the assumption, contradicted by the data, that Americans are turning to other fast food restaurants.



From the now corrected analogy, The Pew research group has no data on what Americans are now eating, and declines to attribute it to a source.



I have never accepted this premise, Plotinus, as you have never justified it. You continue to extend your arguments with it, nonetheless.

Are we done arguing by tortured analogy? We have actual objective data here.

It's possible that we're seeing a lot of polarization.

I think that religious identity in the past included a small vocal minority of atheists and agnostics, a larger vocal number of evangelicals and fundamentalists, and a large population of people who were apathetic in nature, but who answered "Religious" or "Christian" when asked. Christian in name only.

I think we've polarized. Religious hardliners became prevalent in politics, and started scaring people. Shoot James Dobson makes most of his donation money by sending out "they're coming to get us" correspondence. And as the political environment became more religious, and more scary, those apathetic people started examining their own religious beliefs.

Perhaps the numbers of atheism have grown as these people filtered out of the middle. If that's so, then the numbers of fundamentalist evangelicals should have also grown.