Heathens moving ahead in England and Wales poll says....

[bobzmyunkle]

Apparently, having an invisible friend is good for you - even adding a number of years to lifespan
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/03/beyond-beliefs-religious-faith-happier-healthier-life

 

[All uphill]

Apparently, having an invisible friend is good for you - even adding a number of years to lifespan
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/03/beyond-beliefs-religious-faith-happier-healthier-life

Cheaper and easier than having a dog, too!

 

[AuroraSaab]

Not surprising really. Being part of a community brings lots of emotional benefits like companionship, and even if you have faith but don't participate in the community aspect just believing that your life is valued and has a purpose is a great comfort to many. Whether you think these attributes are positive for society overall or just more evidence that religion is the opium of the people depends on your point of view I suppose.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Whether you think these attributes are positive for society overall or just more evidence that religion is the opium of the people depends on your point of view I suppose.

The answer could be non-binary.

Being part of a community brings lots of emotional benefits

That's why we're all here.

 

[BoldonLad]

Cheaper and easier than having a dog, too!

My wife is greedy, she has her religious beliefs, AND she wants a dog.

 

[Ian H]

My wife is greedy, she has her religious beliefs, AND she wants a dog.

I suppose having both a Dog & a God hedges your bets if you suffer from dislexia.

 

[Unkraut]

I just wanted to say, as an atheist, that if there was no false practice in churches there would be no practice!

I always find it ironic when atheists call out say Catholic priests when they are guilty of abuse (this is not confined to Catholics). The priests are being hypocrites and are rightly criticised. Yet if you ask if such atheists subscribe to Judeo-Christian sex ethics they will, with a couple of possible exceptions, so no.

I think in more recent years there has been a gradual change from the New Atheist refutation of Christianity by shrill rhetoric and mockery. There are non-believing thinkers on the scene - Douglas Murray, Tom Holland, Jordan Peterson for example - who see western civilisation was built on the foundation of Christianity, including many of the freedoms we enjoy today. This is being ditched by the current generation at a rapid rate, following on from their parents and grandparents, and what is going to replace it?

If Christianity historically has been responsible for structure and stability, the increasing number of 'heathens' may come at a price, and not necessarily be a good thing ...

 

[winjim]

I always find it ironic when atheists call out say Catholic priests when they are guilty of abuse (this is not confined to Catholics). The priests are being hypocrites and are rightly criticised. Yet if you ask if such atheists subscribe to Judeo-Christian sex ethics they will, with a couple of possible exceptions, so no.

I think in more recent years there has been a gradual change from the New Atheist refutation of Christianity by shrill rhetoric and mockery. There are non-believing thinkers on the scene - Douglas Murray, Tom Holland, Jordan Peterson for example - who see western civilisation was built on the foundation of Christianity, including many of the freedoms we enjoy today. This is being ditched by the current generation at a rapid rate, following on from their parents and grandparents, and what is going to replace it?

If Christianity historically has been responsible for structure and stability, the increasing number of 'heathens' may come at a price, and not necessarily be a good thing ...

Christianity being influential, and I think we would all agree that it has been, doesn't make it true. It's a cipher.

 

[Ian H]

I'm not sure that 'Christian' ethics need a supernatural element to survive.

 

[newfhouse]

If Christianity historically has been responsible for structure and stability, the increasing number of 'heathens' may come at a price, and not necessarily be a good thing ...

The worthwhile and valuable “Christian” ethics are not exclusively Christian, they’re universal.

 

[winjim]

The worthwhile and valuable “Christian” ethics are not exclusively Christian, they’re universal.

I thought of pointing that out, and I thought of mentioning all the supposed Christian ethics which have been cast aside or modified as society has evolved. There's always going to be a rebuttal to that, the no true Scotsman approach I suppose.

But it doesn't matter, what matters is whether the basic premise of Christianity is true or not. Because if our civilisation is based on Christian ethics be they good, bad or indifferent, and if Christianity cannot be demonstrated to be true, then the entire fabric of civilisation is predicated on a falsehood. And that surely can't be considered ethical, whatever the practical outcome.

Demonstrate the truth of the religious claims, then we can talk about what we do with that knowledge. Until then, all we have is vapour.

 

[C R]

I always find it ironic when atheists call out say Catholic priests when they are guilty of abuse (this is not confined to Catholics). The priests are being hypocrites and are rightly criticised. Yet if you ask if such atheists subscribe to Judeo-Christian sex ethics they will, with a couple of possible exceptions, so no.

I think in more recent years there has been a gradual change from the New Atheist refutation of Christianity by shrill rhetoric and mockery. There are non-believing thinkers on the scene - Douglas Murray, Tom Holland, Jordan Peterson for example - who see western civilisation was built on the foundation of Christianity, including many of the freedoms we enjoy today. This is being ditched by the current generation at a rapid rate, following on from their parents and grandparents, and what is going to replace it?

If Christianity historically has been responsible for structure and stability, the increasing number of 'heathens' may come at a price, and not necessarily be a good thing ...

There's a few things to unpack here, so I'll have a go in no particular order.

Christianity doesn't have the exclusive in any kind of moral system. Pretty much all societies have the same basic principles, to wit, don't kill, don't rob, basically, try not to be a shite to others, and all religions reflect that. The difference between religions is which neurotic behaviour they encourage, don't eat pork, don't eat meat on Fridays, don't cut your hair..., there's nothing that makes Christianity particular or special, all religious behaviour follows the same pattern.

There's also this Judeo-Christian values canard that's been floated from the US in the last 30 years or so, and seems to now be taking hold in here too. I am really mystified by it, and I can't be the only one. It seems to appropriate the values of the Illustration, as if they were somehow derived from some kind of religious practice, missing two important points:
1. The Illustration was a movement that developed as a secular moral system, in opposition to the Catholic Church social dominance, so the proponents would have been completely gobsmacked by the christian epithet
2. Antisemitism in Europe at the time of the Illustration was rampant, and any suggestion that there was anything Judaic about their thinking would have been even more hilarious

Finally, Jordan Peterson is a joke, if he agreed with me on anything I would check carefully to see how I arrived at that conclusion.

 

[Once a Wheeler]

Much of the comment in this thread looks on religion as a theory or an assertion which can either be substantiated by faith or negated by reason. Another dimension to the discussion is to regard religion as a product of the human mind. This raises questions such as: What is the benefit of religion to believers? How do believers use religion to influence their behaviour? Has the census revealed a change in the way we think? How does religion work as a mental tool? Is the toolbox changing? If religion is a metaphor, what element in our thinking is replacing gods or rendering them obsolete? In a sense, it is curious that in general we do not take ownership of religion as a human invention.

 

[winjim]

Much of the comment in this thread looks on religion as a theory or an assertion which can either be substantiated by faith or negated by reason. Another dimension to the discussion is to regard religion as a product of the human mind. This raises questions such as: What is the benefit of religion to believers? How do believers use religion to influence their behaviour? Has the census revealed a change in the way we think? How does religion work as a mental tool? Is the toolbox changing? If religion is a metaphor, what element in our thinking is replacing gods or rendering them obsolete? In a sense, it is curious that in general we do not take ownership of religion as a human invention.

Doesn't that fall under the 'negated by reason' category though? I'm not sure it's a position that can be held by a believer, or by a certain type of believer anyway. If you take the position for example that civilisation is based upon Christian ethics which are inerrant and divinely inspired, then it must become difficult to detach yourself from that belief in order to examine the sort of questions you pose.

I think that in order to look at those questions sensibly, you need to begin from an atheistic, or if you want to split hairs an agnostic position. I think it's very interesting the way that religion and society have interacted and shaped each other, but I'm not sure that it addresses my point, made from an atheist to a believer, about supposedly basing ones ethics on claims which can't be proven. Now I don't think that's what's actually happening, I think it's more subtle and interesting than that in ways you have mentioned, but that is the claim I'm trying to examine.

 

[All uphill]

I always find it ironic when atheists call out say Catholic priests when they are guilty of abuse (this is not confined to Catholics). The priests are being hypocrites and are rightly criticised. Yet if you ask if such atheists subscribe to Judeo-Christian sex ethics they will, with a couple of possible exceptions, so no.

I think in more recent years there has been a gradual change from the New Atheist refutation of Christianity by shrill rhetoric and mockery. There are non-believing thinkers on the scene - Douglas Murray, Tom Holland, Jordan Peterson for example - who see western civilisation was built on the foundation of Christianity, including many of the freedoms we enjoy today. This is being ditched by the current generation at a rapid rate, following on from their parents and grandparents, and what is going to replace it?

If Christianity historically has been responsible for structure and stability, the increasing number of 'heathens' may come at a price, and not necessarily be a good thing ...

I am very aware that I exist in a mindset largely formed by the Cof E. Sunday School, RE in school, our social culture, etc and generally I am grateful for that. Probably why I post photos of my bike in front of churches.

However, that inheritance also included some unpleasant and unwelcome attitudes to "people in the colonies" "people who don't know their station" and, worst of all, say it quietly, Roman Catholics.

I think we can do much better, building on all the positives from all the different cultures in our society; sure there are forces trying to gain local advantage at the expense of the whole of our society - hence the need to constantly defend and extend our democracy, protect the rule of law, right to protest.