is religion headed for the junk yard?

[_gramps]

... Mormonism seems to be struggling for air here from what I have witnessed.
Hey Ludwig, can you tell us more about what is happening in eastern Europe?

In worktime, I have a handful to do. I come back afternoon.

Great! Awaiting your input from eastern Europe.

[_asbestosman]

The Dutch (at least the ones I hang out with ( :) ), don't believe, for the most part.

Of the doors I knocked, it seems that the main cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, etc.) don't believe for the most part. That said, even they have plenty of devout members just by the fact that those cities are large. Actually, I lived in the outskirts of Utrecht and there met quite a few Evangelicals and Pentecostals in that area. I would say the same with Alkmaar.

Vlissingen, Middleburg, and the rest of Zeeland (south-east Holland) is fairly religious with most of them tending to be Dutch Calvinist. Dutch Reormed is also quite poplar there. Even then, I still met plenty of atheists, but I think they were less common there.

In general I would think that Holland was much like America. You have pockets of the faithful, those without faith, and so on. The difference in my opinion is that Dutch atheists are not as despised as atheists in America are, so the Dutch seem to be more at ease in either not boasting of their religious affiliation, or of even admitting their actual lack of religous conviction. Even the religious in Holland tend to be much more permissive about matters of drugs, sex, etc.

I also got to visit Belgium a few times. Belgium is quite Catholic although I do not know about the level of activity--it might be large or poor.

[_gramps]

asbestosman wrote:

The difference in my opinion is that Dutch atheists are not as despised as atheists in America are, so the Dutch seem to be more at ease in either not boasting of their religious affiliation, or of even admitting their actual lack of religous conviction. Even the religious in Holland tend to be much more permissive about matters of drugs, sex, etc.

Yep, that is my impression, too.

And yes, I do find pockets of evangelical-pentecostal types everywhere.

[_Roger Morrison]

science keeps going forward leaps and bounds while religion seems to be on the defense - at least now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_sc/stem_cells

of couse this could be called God's work.

Good & relevant question, Guy. I simply say, "yes" to the "junk-yard" as a place from which old, used stuff is salvaged, smelted and reformed into new and useful products.

Pasted below is something from Spong's latest NL. Has to do with a social gathering in NZ he attended. Conversation drifted to life-after-death:

Shirley Cheer discussed the death of her first husband, which occurred a few years ago. "He was a good person," she said. "We had a good life, but he is no more. On his birthday I always do something to remember him. Noel and I might drink a toast to his memory. I have no sense, however, that he still lives anywhere. His life is simply over. I have no expectation that we will meet again."

Jill and Ian were perhaps even more emphatic. "There is no God watching over the world no matter how much some people seem to wish there were. Some theologians try to make that God idea more acceptable by redefining God as something other than a supernatural being, but that is little more than the lingering fantasy of yesterday's religious consciousness." Both were adamant in their conviction that this life was the only life any of us will ever have or know. The two Presbyterian ministers were not quite as bold in their rejection of life after death. They noted, however, that even in mainline churches, the focus of funeral services has shifted dramatically over the last hundred years

Spong, and his wife, do not hold to those ideas. But, he suggests at the end of his letter, his mind is open...

I just caught the LDS TV commercial, "Families Forever". Not an original product but one repackaged to a target market that will take a long time to totally disappear. OTOH, those who do not have the need to 'buy' are a growing segment, as Spong discovered. One that, IMSCO, tends to move society forward by "laws" rather than by magic, superstitions, and force. Obviously influencing 'believers' to participate in reality, in spite of their emotional need to draw from unreality, and depend on fear motivated behaviours.

Sooooo, if/when/since believers live by terms of modified religious applications, likely the toxics of Old-time-religion will less negatively effect the better educated society in general. This seems to be the case in Holland as stated in above posts... Recycled religion will certainly be an improvement over its past.

Joel Osteen(sp?) is a long--and improved--way from Billy Graham, with his representation of Christianism. As i think...

"Happy Thanksgiving, for Photosynthesis!" Without it, we wouldn't be here... Warm regards, Roger

[_beastie]

I concur that religion will never go away. We are wired, to a certain extent, to believe in the supernatural, and combining that with the tendency to form smaller tribal units and follow a leader results in religion. Moreover, I think it's clear that religiosity increases during times of stress and uncertainty. Even believers recognize this with their cliché "there are no atheists in foxholes".*

I think that it is that underlying anxiety that results in the desire to find a way to control what is beyond one's control - or at least to believe one is controlling it somehow. Death is beyond our control, so people "control" it by believing that death is temporary in that there will be a next life. Sickness and loss is usually beyond our control, so people "control" it by pleading with an all-controlling big daddy in the sky who will fix it.

I'm pretty sure (without bothering to reference it) that studies have, indeed, shown that religiosity increases during more stressful times. I know for a fact that the connection between superstition (which is related to the supernatural and religion) and elements beyond control has been firmly established.

It is likely that religion will continue to be modified by its contact with science, as it always has been. Even among those who view themselves as Christian, there are fewer and fewer who regard all the stories as factual, and tend to view them as important myths. Years ago when I went to the Episcopal church, I asked my priest if one could still be a Xtian without believin in a literal Adam and Eve, or in the literal virgin birth, and he said OF COURSE, and he didn't believe in those, either. Of course, in the more conservative (or obviously fundamentalist) sects, that would be heresy, and those sects will be more popular in times of stress because the illusion of control will be even stronger.

In my view, religion is one of those thought processes that does lead to fuzzy thinking, by necessity. But there are also other thought processes that do the same thing, often associated with tribal tendencies as well. I don't think we can eliminate that tendency in human beings, but we may become more and more aware of it as a larger society, even while hosting smaller groups that embrace fuzzy thinking to the point that their entire world view becomes severely distorted.


*no atheists in foxholes always amuses me, particularly when it comes from people who deny that their religious beliefs have anything to do with the desire for emotional comfort, and are simply a realistic, logical assessment of the world as it is

[_malkie]

... The "Exmo" groups are growing like wildfire. ...

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/morexmos.htm

Richard's site has exceeded its free monthly traffic allotment for November.

There's a mirror site at n4m.org. The relevant page is: http://packham.n4m.org/morexmos.htm

HTH

[_Roger Morrison]

Beastie, i tend to agree with you about the likely never-to-be state of humans to be in agreement re god-stuff. However, i think you might have been carried away by the "...no Atheists in fox-holes..." sentiment.

A very close friend and confidant of mine said, "... it's fox-holes that make Atheists..." Being surrounded by such untimely death confirmed, to him, the absurdity of believing in a caring, loving god who/that is in control of human affairs. That "fox-hole" statement is a vicious misrepresentation of reality.

I now cringe every time i hear/read that bit of fundie-evan trype. Must have originated in the mind of some religio PR spinner.

This is NOT saying there is no-hope in fox-holes. Atheists, as others, can have hope of survival, or rescue whatever the circumstances. When confronted with bad weather, as a sailor, i pull out all of the knowledge and understanding i have of the elements, apply them as best i can, and hope for the best. If "God" is responsible for anything, it's the storm. Not calming the seas for me, or replacing my ignorance. Warm regards, Roger

[_beastie]

Roger,

Do you mean I overstated the "atheist in foxholes" in that you think believers don't really believe and use this cliché quite frequently? I hear it, or the same idea, from believers frequently.

Of course, as an atheist myself, I do agree that the idea is nonsense, and also agree foxholes are just as likely to create atheists as believers. But I do find it amusing because it's a sort of freudian slip believers make. Most of them insist that their belief has nothing to do with desiring the emotional comfort of religious belief (the idea that there will be a life after death, the idea that an omnipotent being hears your prayers and may answer them, affording safety and health to you and yours), but then say something like this, showing that, in their own eyes, a great bit of the power of religion lies in emotional comfort. Why else would someone in a foxhole suddenly believe in God?

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Beastie, i'm often not clear with getting my intended thoughts across. So your question is quite justified, :-)... It appears to me that the "fox-hole" statement is put out to denegrate non-believers, in that when push-comes-to-shove even the hardened become wimps and grovel before "God". My WWll Vet friend bristles at this fallacy. Hence, if anything, 'Fox-holes make Atheists out of believers."

I think we're on the same page... Warm regards, Roger