Goodbye yhwh-Goodbye jesus

by fulltimestudent 40 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  fulltimestudent

  Interesting report in a Oxford University Blog - the world is becoming less religious, (Hurray!!!)

  Quote: "An analysis of religious trends from 1981 to 2007 in 49 countries containing 60% of the world’s population did not find a global resurgence of religion—most high-income countries were becoming less religious—however, it did show that in 33 of the 49 countries studied, people had become more religious (Norris and Inglehart, 2011).

  But since 2007, things have changed with surprising speed. From 2007 to 2020, an overwhelming majority (43 out of 49) of these same countries became less religious. This decline in belief is strongest in high-income countries but it is evident across most of the world (Inglehart, 2021)."

  And, Surprise, surprise !!! Even in that once bastion of godliness, the good ol' hew ess hay - belief has been declining more rapidly than in most other countries.

  The author is Ronald F. Inglehart who is the Lowenstein Professor of Political Science emeritus at the University of Michigan. He is the author of Religion’s Sudden Decline: What’s Causing it, and What Comes Next? (Oxford University Press—forthcoming in January 2021), from which this essay is adapted.
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  This is interesting. I read their previous book, which is is one of the best on secularisation.

  Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide

  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sacred-Secular-Religion-Worldwide-Cambridge/dp/1107648378/

  It sounds like they are continuing the same theme: religion declines in stable countries and increases in unstable countries. For a while, since instability prevailed in populous countries, this meant a percentage rise in religious commitment worldwide, but this trend has apparently run its course.

  On the long term causes of secularisation I think Steve Bruce still provides the best explanation available, in his book God is Dead: Secularisation in the West.

  https://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Dead-Secularization-Religion-Modern/dp/0631232753/

  Callum Brown is excellent too.

  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Religion-Demographic-Revolution-Secularisation-Religious/dp/1843837927/
• 

  carla

  I hear a lot of people say they are not religious but they are spiritual and have strong belief in God & Jesus. They do not adhere to man made religions anymore. I think it was C. S. Lewis who said something to the effect that just because you stand in a garage it does not make you an automobile, sitting in a church week after week does not make one a Christian either.
• 

  Phizzy

  For a good number of years here in the U.K I have met people who not only do not define themselves as " religious" but also find those that do wear their faith on their sleeve to be somewhat peculiar.

  And yet, many of these same people do not identify as Atheist, most like to come across as a sort of Agnostic: " Well. I would like to think there is something Greater than us", and similar thoughts are expressed.

  This does mean though that organised religion is shrinking, attendance at Church, Chapel and kingdom Hall etc has been low for many years here, and is still on the decline. Few who do not attend donate the needed cash.

  The decline of the Church of England as measured by numbers actually attending , and apparently those number are falsely inflated somewhat, means that the pressure to remove the 26 Bishops from the House of Lords, who are there by "right", will mount, and hopefully then lead to the establishment of a proper Upper House. One that is Democratically Elected and has actual power to influence Laws and the direction the Government is going.
• 

  Anna Marina

  From the time of Prince Albert and Florence Nightingale it was said the new religion would be statistics.

  There's lies, damn lies and then there's statistics.

  What is defined by the term 'religion' is a network of people joined by a set of values and priorities. You can have anything as 'god'. The question is whether or not you are bothered about getting things right or not. Are you aware/realistic about what 'drives' or 'motivates' you. What causes you to form a relationship of close friendship and trust with another person.

  (Matthew 18:20) . . .For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.”
  
• 

  mickbobcat

  Although I am an atheist I do see how religion kept people in line a bit morally. Not everyone needs a religion to be a good person but some do. A set of good principals helps with development. No not cult rule but good basic moral compass. Today I see so many who have no moral compass at all. They think they do but there is a void. The problem with voids is they want to be filled and if its liberalism, communism and socialism we are Fed.
  
• 

  Sea Breeze

  There is no question that atheists can do moral things, believe in right or wrong, help others etc. But, that is not the issue. The real issue is: do they have a foundation or basis for moral decision-making?

  William Provine, evolutionist and biology professor at Cornell University, states in referring to the implications of Darwinism, “No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth.”

  I think a lot of people are figuring out that if we are just natural products of chemistry and physics acting over time, then there is no ultimate reason to get upset about perceived wrong-doing. I mean, we don't try to punish the planet Venus for spinning backwards while all the other planets spin the "correct way", right? Maybe Venus has it right and all the other planets have it wrong. Why get bent out of shape about anything..... it is what it is.

  This loss of moral compass will dramatically increase societal instability. Why not rig elections? If we have the ability to do so, we must be the fittest. Right?
• 

  Phizzy

  Just because we are the product of chance and Natural Selection, that does not mean that we are unable to make ethical and moral choices, or that we should not do so.

  A lot of good, ethical and moral choices are made in Nature, by what some still like to think of as " lesser " species, co-operation and altruistic works are seen.

  If we have evolved the intelligence to work out what does the most good and the least harm, we should make those choices, not anything that comes short of that.
• 

  GrreatTeacher

  Thank you, Phizzy.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  If we have evolved the intelligence to work out what does the most good and the least harm, we should make those choices, not anything that comes short of that.

  But that's exactly the problem; How do you know if your "good" won't ultimately do harm that you cannot at this time see? Communism was certainly based on some estimation of "good". And, over 100 Million people were murdered because of it. I'm sure those murdered didn't believe that it was "the most good and least harm".
  
  What about the 60 Million babies murdered since Roe v. Wade. Was that the "least harm" to them?

  Those people cheating in the presidential election surely believe they were acting in the best interests of the rest of the county.
  
  If we are all a result of just blind, unguided happenstance, what basis can make one person's "good" right, and what basis is there that makes another person who suffers as a result of that moral choice "wrong"?

  In other words, if unguided chance & survival of the fittest has created us, aren't we in pretty murky territory to say that your "good" is better that someone else's notion of good? Isn't this an abandonment of the blind chance that got us here? Is taking control of things that are better left to random happenstance better?. It worked so well in the past, why abandon it, right?