Sunday in the US. Since Australia is an 18 hour time difference I'm not exactly sure what day it is down there. But it doesn't make much difference because whatever day it is, the young folks are probably not in church.
Or so says a new study, The Spirit of Generation Y (Gen Y are those born between 1976 and 1990). The survey was a joint project of Monash University, the Australian Catholic University and the Christian Research Association.
Yes, there's hope yet for the younger generation, at least in Australia. Less than half believe in a god, with 20% outright atheists and another 32% not sure if there is a god or not. That means freethinkers constitute a majority of the Australian people aged 16 to 30. The other 48% said they believed in god, but only 19% of those who identified themselves as Christians attended church at least once a month.
Nor is the reason a tendency toward New Age spirituality. Only one third of the non-believers (17%) were in that category.
Dr Andrew Singleton of Monash University, a co-author of the study, said they were surprised by the findings. "It's well-known that there has been a turn away from church attendance and participation in young people," he said.
"But we thought there was going to be a move towards alternative spiritualities.
"There are still a number turning towards it, but not as big as you would have thought." (The Age [Australia])
Thirty one percent of Generation of Y (two-thirds of the non-believers) were classified as humanists, that is, as rejecting the idea of god and replacing it "with a belief in human experience, human reason and scientific explanations." This, of course, gladdens my heart. But not everyone is happy:
Robert Forsyth, Anglican Bishop of South Sydney, said the results were expected. "This is the first generation to have nothing to do with Sunday school," he said.
"This is the first generation who probably know nothing about Christ, except those who go to Christian schools.
"It is sad, but in my view it is entirely what we expected to happen."
Yes, it is what we expect to happen when we get religion out of the schools: a generation of young people who believe in the human experience, human reason and scientific explanations. Hallelujah!
- Log in to post comments
A step in the right direction, obviously. But until we have a collective response from important, and powerful, institutions in Western cultures condemning the archaic, and fundamentally destructive "mind control" practices engaged in by Christianity, and other equally insidious and pernicious superstitions, I don't think that we are going to make much real progress in this area.
Religions are powerfully entrenched, cultural parasites of the worst sort. They prosper most, and meet the least resistance, where poverty and ignorance ensure that the people whom they "infect" have little or no opportunity to ever free themselves from this utterly unparalled, ubiquitous scourge. And their long history of association with political power, corruption, and cowardly institutions that refuse to cast a rational light on their pervasive, anti-human activities has helped them to maintain a position that allows them to destroy one generation after another; with very few voices lifted in outrage, and righteous indignation at their vile practices. Enough! This should have come as a resounding "chorus," shouted from the rooftops of every rational instution on this planet, long ago.
Revere: the hostility against any sort of belief in the supernatural or higher power or Creator bugs me; you are bigger than that. No question, fundamentalist dogma of any stripe is an attempt to control what a person may think or believe. It is used as a weapon to control anyone who differs from "the norm." I'm not in favor of anything like that.
I was raised as a Lutheran. I drifted into charismatic fundamentalism before I found pot. All these years later, I have my own difficulties in exploring what my own true ineer beliefs are, because I am so imprinted with the faith of my fathers. Still, I have great respect for those who search beyond the mass-marketed religion of today and explore faith traditions of the past.
Fundamentalists have hijacked more than one religion. In so doing, so many people refuse all religion as bull. What if we look at faith in terms of philosophy? In terms of what absolute humanist values we carry insode ourselves? Why must anyone who attends services with fellow believers in community be tarred as some mindless drone lacking any self-knowledge or sophisticated thought?
I think I understand your disgust at religion which claims superiority to science, I get that. Too much of what passes for religion today is about hating "the other." But that doesn't reflect the beliefs of many people who follow Jesus or the Buddha or Allah or all the other names of God.
Just this morning, NPR aired an interview with a feminist lesbian who has spent her life studying and teaching the Bible. Her take on Christianity is far different from the Robertsons and Falwells and Grahams, as you might expect. Do you hold disdain for believers like that woman? I would hope not. The discussion of faith can turn into such a polarizing thing. Believers get classified as idiots following God the Friendly Ghost, and non-believers are sexual hedonists without conscience and headed to eternity in Hell. I happen to believe there is plenty of room for discussion and agreement somewhere in the vast middle between those two poles.
I fully support your right to believe in whatever you believe, but I kinda hope you would be able to do the same for others, and without the obvious derision. There are so many other crayons in that big Crayola box besides the black and the white.
Paul - With all due respect I don't believe that atheist governments have done much better than religious ones in human affairs. The Russian communists murdered tens of millions for ideological reasons the Chinese communists did the same. The atheists under Pol Pot in Cambodia managed to murder nearly a quarter of the population of the entire country for ideological reasons. The atheists in the Netherlands with euthenize you when they are tired of taking care of you. Sorry, I just don't see the atheists having a track record so much better than the evil Christians. I think, all in all, I'll stick with the Mother Teresa's and Albert Schweitzers of the world.
The Market As God
Today it can be safely said that our national religion is The Market. Religion may be broadly defined as a "kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought." "Religion" as the term is used here, does not necessarily refer to anything traditionally metaphysical, theological, or church related. It is the cultural "overlay" that animates the spirit of a people.
Modern corporate capitalist business is driving the contamination that is destroying the world.
The real question is not whether or not there is a deity. The real issue is how do we organize to stop these corporations from producing irreversible climate change.
Or do we choose to drop down on our knees,
and pray to The Market, and we a poisoned
by the contamination?
I think the most important finding is not so much the increase in atheism and agnosticism, but the increase in secular humanism. There have been murderous regimes headed by atheists (although, notably, the ones cited above have not started wars against other nations). To my knowledge, neither war nor systematic oppression has been perpetrated by secular humanists.
Mindful of the Constitution folks. Revere does this every Sunday.
I pose the question, "Will the soldier who pierced the side of Christ see him again?"
Even if Revere is one of the is wrong and we are right I have said it before, nothing I have ever seen this guy do is outright mean. Nor is anything I have seen him write designed to create anything but discussion. Been to church lately? I can get into the biggest arguments with my fellow parishoners and priest about things in the Bible. Hell it flat doesnt add up which is what he contends. But on the other hand while I do believe even after the incongruities, he simply doesnt. So do I become a Bible thumper and ram it down his throat and say "Yer going to Hell!"? Nope.
There is a defining moment in those that believe. I dont say Christian in this and that is at the time that someone comes to believe. I didnt hear Christ jumping up and down saying you have to build a religion around me, or to create a huge money making temple in Rome, or for Jim and Tammy Faye to make a theme park from donations. Nope, never heard it.
Nor did I hear him say that those who dont are going to Hell. What does an aborigine on a secluded island know about Christ? De Nada. So does he go to the barbeque pit because he doesnt? Its all in a perception, we just read it differently. Its what is called faith and I dont think IMO that the lack of it puts you on the chopping block at the time of your death. Judged by acts, not by thoughts.
I always am looking for new information that challenges my faith. Revere's comments are expected and not new, 'bout 2000 years of that. Got a Madonna?
>The Russian communists murdered tens of millions for ideological reasons the Chinese communists did the same. The atheists under Pol Pot in Cambodia managed to murder nearly a quarter of the population of the entire country for ideological reasons.< - Carl
Commonly employed "straw man" argument. "Atheism" was not responsible for any of these atrocities, Any more than Christianity was responsible for the crimes of history's most notorious mass-murderer.
Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.
In "Mein Kamph," Hitler revealed the fact that he had early intentions of becoming a member of the clergy. Does that -- somehow -- make the Vatican, and Catholicism, responsible for World War II? As much as I despise the Vatican, I think not.
No "decent" religion would ever propose that a failure to adopt it will result in perpetual confinement in "Hell." Christianity does not meet this standard. The twin pillars of its foundation consist entirely of "fear," and "hatred." Even self-hatred is a fundamental element of its dogma (Original Sin). It is disgusting beyond belief.
To Dylan - "The Russian communists murdered tens of millions for ideological reasons the Chinese communists did the same. The atheists under Pol Pot in Cambodia managed to murder nearly a quarter of the population of the entire country for ideological reasons.
Commonly employed "straw man" argument. "Atheism" was not responsible for any of these atrocities, Any more than Christianity was responsible for the crimes of history's most notorious mass-murderer."
Then it is a "straw man" argument often used by atheists to place the evils of the world at the feet of Christianity?
Maybe I did not express myself clearly
My point in my original post was NOT that atheism CAUSED the said governments to engage in mass murder. My point was that those governments, avowedly atheist, nonetheless committed the mass murders. Ergo, being atheist does not particularly mean that one is more humane than the religious individual.
BTW - I would argue that Hitler is the most notorious only because of his use of industrial methods to carry out a holocaust that was ethnically directed against Jews. Stalin and Mao killed more persons (about 27 million in the Stalin enforced terror famine in the Ukraine in the 1920s for example)while their motives were ideological rather than ethnic although I don't know what difference that makes to the dead.
YAWN-----I sadly was curious enough to read another Sunday Sermonette---"Ode to the Joy of hating religion"! WOW. It managed to stir up Hitler and Pol Pot and massacres!
We can read yet again, Bible misinterpretations from people who have never read the Bible or participated in a Bible study of any kind.
It is all too sad and pathetic to see people base their uninformed beliefs about religion from some headlines,
goofballs on TV, and historical fiction.
Has anyone read the New Testament of the Bible yet?
It is all about >>>LOVE<< and >>>TRUST<<< and >>>FAITH<<<.
How can people go outside at night----look up at the sky and thousands of stars---and still think the universe revolves meaninglessly and solely around them? Do the poor souls just take the garbage out without looking up?
Lift your hearts up, folks. It will make you feel better than trying to stab the hearts of others.
I'm handicapped in this conversation as I am on dialup and connecting is painful. But let me try to clarify my position, here. I don't care what people believe as long as that belief isn't manipulated and used to cause mischief, which unfortunately doesn't describe most of what we have come to see as traditional religion. If you want to worship science, Allah, Christ, Jehovah or Michael Jordan, fine with me. I don't worship any of them (noteven science) but that's me and doesn't really concern you.
I oppose any form of atheism that says let's wipe out believers or make them not believe as we do. I don't approve of destorying houses of worship or preventing people from worshiping as they see fit. I do approve of limiting the ability of worshippers of anything from being used to do bad things in this world. I'm talking about religion here.
A country isn't better because it has a lot of freethinkers. It's not my impression that Australian youth are paragons of virtue and they don't seem better or worse than American youth. Which is part of the point. Religion doesn't make you better. Some religious views make some people better. Most make people act far worse. Freethinker views don't make a person act better, either, but for the most part they don't make people commit atrocities or exclude others who are otherwise the same as they are but for some religious label they inherited from their parents.
Everybody seems fine with people espousing religious views on their blogs but when someone says he or she is godless, it's a big afront. It's OK to say Christ is everyone's Saviour if only you accept it but not OK to say that reason is everyone's savior if only you accept it (something I don't believe, by the way). It's OK to be almost any kind of believer if you are running for office in the US but not OK to be godless.
We use this space every Sunday to say it is OK to be godless and we say it out loud. We are atheists. We are godless. We think most religions are a blight on human existence and the ones that aren't no one knows about, which is right and proper because they are private beliefs which are no one else's business.
The fact that Hitler was a believer is not material. For the most part he didn't kill in the name of religion but of Aryanism, another kind of odious tribalism. That Stalin was an atheist is also not germane. He killed in the name of ideology, not in the name of atheism. That George Bush is killing in the name of religion or that religion is being manipulated in the Middle East, those are germane. We consider it inarguable that religion has played a terrible role in the current conflicts, only the most recent such example of innumerable such examples.
The problem with religion is that it gets organized. Someone takes charge. The first thing they do is start writing down rules, rituals and procedures for the belief system. Generally their purpose intially is to set things up so that others can experience an epiphany. Unfortunately this dependence upon the ritual as an end unto itself soon removes it - and the believers - from any direct spiritual experience or epiphany. From there it is a slippery slope to religion as a means of controlling populations and gathering wealth...and all the rest of the evils that you all describe above follow naturally in its course. No wonder revere and so many others disdain religion.
However... If you have ever had a direct spiritual experience or epiphany, you would never again doubt your spiritual nature. Those who have not experienced this, such as Revere, cannot believe, just as those who have cannot ever again disbelieve. Stay out of church, stay away from dogma, and just look for the unexplained, the mysteries, the clues all around you. Listen for the sound of light. Look for the magic without embarrassment that someone might think you a fool. Fools are the ones running around with their eyes closed. True science is open to all experience, and the null hypothesis is always god.
Earl: Well, your version of the Bible is full of Love, for which I am grateful and I think it speaks well of the reader. But you must admit, you can tune in TV almost any time and find others who seem to spend a lot of time reading the same Bible spewing hatred. Either someone can't read or this is a document with somjething for everyone. And unfortunately the Earl-type readers seem far outnumbered by the Pat Robertson-type readers.
Yes, looking at the stars can inspire awe. But like the Bible, the stars invoke different associations. When we look at the stars, we think of Einstein's relativity papers (which we've read, BTW), or Maxwell's equations or the Laws of Thermodynamics. Those are eternal verities fashioned by the human mind. Awe -inspiring but human.
But that's just us.
Folks Revere puts up some VERY good points and I seem to recall something called the Crusades that were done in the name of God. The response to that was quick and to the point. The world as we know it has been paying for it for centuries as a result.
Einstein believed in God and science. Revere is a man who believes in science but not of God. I can also remember guys running something called the Inquistion like him were put on the rack until he confessed his sins, was given absolution and then garroted. Cant have people like that running around now can we?
He provides a balance to fever of the brow organized religion and I understand it. I am Episcopal by choice but totally disagree with the appointment of gay and lesbians to the pulpit in "my religion". So he disagrees with that on the grounds of discrimination not of religion. Okay, we agree to disagree and move on. But bashing him up because he hasnt seen anything scientific that would prove the existence of God doesnt make him wrong, a bad guy and where in the Hell is my rack when I need it. In todays world I would like to see something more concrete of the existence myself. But that in some religions would also be tantamount to heresy for having the doubt. Now they are using the rack on me.
revere,
There is a difference between religion and faith. Mary makes the point rather nicely above. Religions are human constructions and suffer from human problems.
There is this amusing asymmetry about belief and non-belief. If this had been a blog post about a poll showing that people were becoming more religious, and revere was a theist delighted by that fact, few eyebrows would be raised. There certainly would be no irate comments that revere is bashing non-believers, or hostile to atheism.
However, turn things around and there will inevitably be comments like this:
and this:
Essentially these comments are from people asking that theistic beliefs be given some special treatment or respect -- somehow praising non-belief is equivalent to bashing believers, while praising belief would be perfectly normal and expected.
To the contrary - my argument would not be that religious believers deserve some special respect - my arugment is that nonbelievers have no more particular claim on virtue than believers. I originally used the Russian / Chinese / Cambodian examples to show that governments run by avowed nonbelievers were just as capable of gastly crimes as those headed by believers. I disagree with the premise that nonbelievers are more likely to be viruous or humane as a result of their nonbelief.
As an Australian with three Gen Y daughters, the findings of the study ring true. Religion here seems to be more of a habit for the elderly than anything else, although the poisonous influence of fundamentalist christianity is detectable.
On the plus side, we do have a political party dedicated at erradicating the influence of religion on government (http://www.secular.org.au/) of which I am a proud member.
I understand, and I agree. But I saw no one make this claim anywhere in this thread.
The atheists in the Netherlands with euthenize you when they are tired of taking care of you.
"Euthanasia is popularly taken to mean any form of termination of life by a doctor. The definition under Dutch law, however, is narrower. It means the termination of life by a doctor at the express wish of a patient. The request to the doctor must be voluntary, explicit and carefully considered and it must have been made repeatedly."
Please see to your informational hygiene, Carl.
--
Has anyone read the New Testament of the Bible yet?
It is all about >>>LOVE>>TRUST>>FAITH
I have in fact read it -- having read the entire Bible cover to cover several hundred times, in multiple different translations and with the aid of the best commentaries and concordances I can locate. And I find in the New Testament, though not as many as in the Old, repeated incitements to hate and violence, all the way from the Gospels to the book of Revelation.
I'll just pick Matthew 10:34 as one among many.
[34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
I'm just a simple country boy, so I will leave it to more sophisticated theologians to explain to me how the above is actually a plea for pacifism.
If someone says to me that their holy book is an infallible guide to moral behavior, and then when I begin to ask difficult questions about the content, they reply to me by saying "Well, you have to read it selectively," they do no aid to their own case.
--
How can people go outside at night----look up at the sky and thousands of stars---and still think the universe revolves meaninglessly and solely around them?
There is a revealing incomprehension at work here.
I in no sense think that the universe revolves solely around me. And it's somewhat insulting that such would be implied.
What I think about the universe is it has an existence larger than my own tiny and transitory one. The universe was here long before I came into existence, it will be here long after my death, and except on an infinitesimal scale, it has not been and will not be materially affected by me at all.
Earl seems to be implying that those of us without faith are _de facto_ egocentric. What I am is humbled by immensity.
--
Marquer:
Here is a fine commentary on Mark 10:34 from a Muslim website:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/BibleCom/mt10-34.html
Take note of the final paragraph:
"It is a horrible and sad reality, that in history not all who called themselves Christians were obedient to Jesus' commands and much violence and persecution in the name of Christianity has been committed. We know this, we are grieved by it, and we repent of it. But it is not the authentic teaching of Jesus Christ."
And Marquer---When I say people with no Faith think the universe revolves around them, I mean that the center of their existence is alone, separate, and apart from the Universe. The fact that you are humbled by the immensity of the Universe is your connection to God, not your separation.
So what you're saying is, if you're not an egocentric atheist, you're actually a crypto-theist? Holy false dichotomy, Batman!
This is exactly what I was talking about -- you'll complain to high heaven about the "religion-bashing" of a fairly mild blog entry, but you feel no compunction about bashing non-believers with claims like "people with no Faith think the universe revolves around them..." (Your weak explanation of this statement makes it no less odious and false.)
M. Randolph: the inquisition would not have 'absolved and garotted' Revere. I suspect Revere would have gone to the flames in an auto da fe without the mercy of a garotting first (repentants who could pay the executioners qual;itifed for that mercy). Maybe he'd have been silenced like the heretic Giordano Bruno who refused to shut up on his way to the stake in the Camp di Fiori, Rome - one iron spike driven under his chin, through his tongue, the second through his cheeks side to side to make the shape of the redeeming cross.
????Cryptotheist????
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cryptotheist
You have out-philosophized me for sure. Great stab. I don't even know what it means.
peter: thanks for the vote of confidence . . . I think.
Earl: It means you are pulling out another version of the old canard, "there are no atheists in foxholes." In fact you are claiming there aren't any atheists, period.
Here's my version. You are also an atheist. Except you disbelieve in one less god than I do.
We Aussie non believers(well they are making it all up) are in the majority but we still get bottom billing on the (5 yearly, due tomorrow)census form !
Bloody government sycophants !
Hmm, I didn't think that was a particularly obscure prefix. It only took me about 5 seconds to find a definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto
"And unfortunately the Earl-type readers seem far outnumbered by the Pat Robertson-type readers."
I would say this hypothesis would not stand up to an empirical investigation. The Pat Robertson-type readers are very loud but few in number. Most american christians are bland middle of the roaders that don't have a strong opinion on anything. If they did, they would find themeselves outraged by the robertson types.
If religious people would stay out of politics so that they're religious views are not codified into law, the world would go round a great deal faster. The flip side of freedome to worship: the freedom of others not allied with religion to live their lives as they want without interference.
My aunty had it right - she was bought up an Irish Protestant in Melbourne in the 1950's. She always reckoned that the Catholics didn't go to the football on Saturday because they were at church confessing their sins. 'Cause you gotta understand that for Irish, Koori, Serbian, Greek Aussies etc. the only real religion is football.(That's Aussie Rules for you wadjelas)
The main cause of the decline in attendance is that Rupert Murdoch(aka the archangel gabriel) decided he could make more money if games were played over two days instead of one.
A friend recently sent me this - seems like a good moment to share it. Not that I'm entirely against the Bible, it's an interesting reference book, especially Revelations prophecy. But too much of it just doesn't add up....
Why Can't I Own a Canadian?
October 2002
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people
who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22
and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open
letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the
Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as
many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle,
for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to
be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however,
regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing
odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the
odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.
In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period
of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I
have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly
states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination -
Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree.
Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How
should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops
in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we
just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can
help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.
Your devoted fan,
Jim
The point of the original post seemed to be this: young people in Australia are less spiritually-minded than older people in Australia. It's a simple description of a population and may turn out to be a useful natural experiment, if its not too confounded by other large social changes.
As it is said, the proof will be in the pudding.
My own opinion is that this change is due more to a lack of authenticity in the Christian establishment than to anything else. Not to air our dirty laundry, but we Christians have been playing dress-up in some cases, and it's damaging our credibility in all cases.
Kyangadac: "Cause you gotta understand that for Irish, Koori, Serbian, Greek Aussies etc. the only real religion is football."
lol. here's what we have in amerka:
Sunday sunday sunday
That report may be very misleading. As an Australian there has been on a substantial rise in the numbers of "heart on the sleeves" Christians who have no problems in telling you about their faith (new found or not). The biggest growing Churches in Australia are the US import style born again evangelic churches. I am just waiting for the sex scandal, fraudulent behaviour etc to hit that proverbial fan.
The other point is so many of our politicians also profess their faith publicly. The sad thing is their Christianity (in my opinion) would make their god weep due to the lack of compassion understanding on their part.
atoz: The survey was done by Monash and Catholic organizations using standard survey methods. So it isn't too likely it is intentionally misleading in downplaying religion. I gather your point is that it is too rosy a picture for religion?
Revere, you've fallen into a logic error here.
You make the implicit assumption that the absence of theistic religion will lead to the increase of scientific rationalism.
This is an unproven assertion at best, and IMHO is a classic case of how an individual's objectivity can be screwed up by wishful thinking.
Here's my counter-hypothesis: The absence of theistic religion will not lead to a significant increase in scientific rationalism, but instead will lead to a significant increase in the religion of consumerism. Instead of church, or the science lecture hall, there will be the congregation of the shopping mall and the entertainment arcade. Instead of reading and thinking, there will be mindless twitching on video cames. Instead of a preoccupation with facts and testable theories, will come an even greater preoccupation with money and status and having more baubles than the folks next door.
So let us ask these youth of Australia whence comes their sense of meaning. I say that if you operationalize the variables in anything like an objective manner, i.e. wording of the questions and multiple-choice responses, order in which the multiple-choice responses are presented, and so on, the facts will support my hypothesis. And it will not be a welcome outcome by any means.
Cougar,
The Old Testament is the OLD Testament.
THE LAW of the Old Testament did not work.
Humans were incapable of following it, and the religious leaders of the time added their OWN laws---not God's.
Jesus had to come and put a stop to the belief that THE LAW was the path to God. Following Jesus is a perfect path for ALL to God now---not following laws, or doing good works, or performing rituals. The GRACE of God is a free gift for all. You do not earn it--all you do is turn to God and receive it in your heart.
Revere, I do believe there are many, many atheists. I just do not understand why that is the case. I do not understand why people blame God for all the horrible things people choose to do.
It is not God's fault when people act horribly. I am afraid it is human nature. We humans have chosen freely to break the balance, peace, and equilibrium of life.
We all could have peace if we would listen and LEARN EVERYTHING Jesus said.
Earl E.: "I do not understand why people blame God for all the horrible things people choose to do."
Gee, Earl E. I don't know. Maybe because many of the people doing the horrible things broadcast that they are doing those things in the name of god/allah/whatever.
More to the point, I think you misattribute characteristics to atheists in your statement. I'm an atheist, and I don't blame god for all the horrible things people choose to do. Since atheists don't believe in god in the first place, it'd be a little hard make such an attribution.
The ability to accept the knowledge that we as humans can't control everything and don't know everything is an ability that few people possess.
Faith in an external being is the individual's attempt to reconcile those things that are beyond his/her control or are seemingly inexplicable.
Religion, on the other hand, is a construct of the human community to control that in which people place their faith. Religion is about amassing power, period.
In my opinion, it takes a stronger person to be an atheist as being one requires the ability to take personal responsibilty rather than, when challenged or overwhelmed, praying to an outside source for help.
Placing faith in something outside of self is both a relinquishing of responsibility for one's own circumstances and a deprivation of the sense of empowerment that derives from directing your own outcomes within your scope of influence.
All that said, for those who do place faith outside of self and derive a sense of consolation and support, more power to you. Just, please, don't try to legislate your beliefs as the current US administration does.
g510: No logic error. My characterization of what humanist meant in this survey was the authors', not mine. I was just reporting what they said. The error, then would be an empirical one. I don't see the case for their making an error. Maybe if you look at the survey you can detect one.
Nancy: I'm with you.