Research on Belief in God

[ray j willings]

"There were a range of factors leading to American intervention in Iraq. I don't think pressure from left-wing Trotskyists was one of them (although if the "incarnation"

Money was the only factor why the BUSH co-op invaded Iraq and just about anywhere else they could get some " ker- ching"

911 a black flag operation just like all the ones that America did before.

That administration is a parasite on the world.

No religion involved just greed.

 

[The Hitch]

I hope everyone who engages echoes in his Iraq comment realizes where he is coming from

Saddam had enormous courage and should be adored.

I think generally 99.9% of people whatever their view of the US action, acknowledge that Saddam was a barbaric dictator who engaged in a racist genocide on a group of people and murdered and tortured thousands upon thousands of innocents, during a long terror fuelled reign.

Echoes opposition to anyone who backed the Iraq action at any point, has nothing to do with any concern over life but an anger that one of his favourite world leaders (most of which tend to be authoritarian dictators) was removed.

 

[ray j willings]

Read or watch [you tube] what ex CIA agent Susan Lindauer has to say.
She was the go to agent between Iraq and US. If you don't know of her it will open your eyes to how corrupt the Bush boys are and will enlighten you on the real relationship between Iraq and the US not the controlled media output.

Her story is amazing.

 

[Jspear]

Merry Christmas!

Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

John 3:15-17
So that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Philipians 2:3-11
Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[McLovin]

Merry Christmas!

 

[rhubroma]

Certainly, Christ's answer to the rich man to the question of "How can I attain salvation?" indicates the rejection of worldly goods (you could argue that this is just a particular case and Jesus "sees the heart" of the questioner). On the other hand, e.g. the scene of Jesus' feet were anointed with perfume seem to show more of an acceptance of worldly goods (see John 12). Why if he rejected all worldly goods, did he have a treasurer? I would say that the message is to not be attached to or seek worldly goods.

The anointing of perfume, of course, needs to be interpreted within the context of a sacred rite that presaged the climatic sacrifice. I certainly don't see, therefore, any need to draw conclusions about embracing worldly luxuries. To my knowledge the Christ had no fixed residence, associated himself prevalently with the poor and meek and was a wandering wretch even by the standards of antiquity, the example of which says volumes more about renouncing (and this is actually rather Platonic, or in the example of Diogenes) the material world to cultivate inner spirituality and to become in essence "pure." You'll have to enlighten me about the treasurer. "Be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." Cultivating weath wasn't contemplated in this idea of perfection, however, for which we return to the most generalized statement about the camel passing through the eye of the needle (an impossibility) and the greater than impossible chances of a rich man gaining entrance to the Celestial Kingdom. We also must contextualize such an example with the immanence of the Kingdom that he predicted was "at hand," though which did not, of course, materialize.The impossible standard was thus only contemplated in the short-term, before the End. but we're still waiting...

Certainly they are of an impossible standard. I think it is unfair though for us to assume that Christians (generally speaking) want to change the standard, since it is open to interpretation.

But how can you say this with a straight face? Everything about Western Christendom in this age of conspicuous consumption and materialism, under the aegis of today's capitalism, is diametrically opposed to everything that the Christ stood for and the example he made as a wandering wretch. At least that much is clear. I, therefore, don't see how the faithful can reconcile, let alone justify, today's social paradigm with their Book.

And again the message wasn't directed at just one example, but an entire class of abundant means. Recall the parable of the rich man who wouldn't even let the wretch nurish himself with the crumbs that fell from his copious table: other than the "trickle-down effect." Look I'm just holding Christians to that standard, as it was clearly the standard to which the Christ held his followers. At least that much is clear.

Happy Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun).

 

[Echoes]

So many of those who believe in a god adjust what ever book they are reading to make it fit into their life/belief goal aims. If that goal includes killing then they feel they are "just" in their killing. You cannot say because they read text in a more basic violent way that they are less religious than those who only take peace out of the text. The violence is right there written down in holy books. That's is the way they see the text, That is their calling.

I must say I'm quite tired of all these demagogical clichés...

The violence is right there in the books, yes, of course, violence is right there in history. The Koran is violent? Of course, the Muslims were about to be massacred, so they fought back. But by no means did they shoot first, okay? They always acted in self-defence. It's not a book for hippies ...

Violence in the Gospel? Yes, the crucifiction was violent. Mel Gibson showed it, I think. And yet, Christ did not react. Violence is always directed towards ourselves.

No, the religious don't adjust a book to their own beliefs, they accept all of what the Book teaches. It's quite different. However many atheists did adjust books to their own beliefs. It's called pilpulism. The Books have their own logic, they are no buffets!

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

But how can you say this with a straight face? Everything about Western Christendom in this age of conspicuous consumption and materialism, under the aegis of today's capitalism, is diametrically opposed to everything that the Christ stood for and the example he made as a wandering wretch. At least that much is clear. I, therefore, don't see how the faithful can reconcile, let alone justify, today's social paradigm with their Book.

Why does it always have to be so void of nuance with you?

There really isn't any kind of general and absolute command to be poor anywhere in the Bible. But with a little more nuance, you'll find that a lot of Christians will agree with you that Christ's message is diametrically opposed to the modern social paradigm in this age of materialism and consumerism. And you'll find a lot of Christians very worried about the state of Christendom in the western world because this consumerism and materialism has seeped into Christendom and into the lives of many of those who profess to follow Christ.

 

[Echoes]

Maarten, how do you explain the "eye of a needle" quote? Because it seems clear to me that it's an encouragement to remain poor.

Agree with the rest of your quote, though.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Maarten, how do you explain the "eye of a needle" quote? Because it seems clear to me that it's an encouragement to remain poor.

Agree with the rest of your quote, though.

Well, it's certainly a warning against riches, but I'm not so sure it is a kind of absolute command to be poor.

The Bible is very clear that riches can keep someone away from God. It's clear that a love for money and wealth cannot be reconciled with Christianity, but saying every believer has to live in poverty is in my view another extreme that is not warranted for by the eye of the needle quote. I think it's perfectly acceptable for a believer to be relatively wealthy, if he uses his wealth for good. If a Christian has a nice job and earns a lot of money, good for him, but the Bible certainly warns him to be weary as to what he does with his money, lest he spend his life storing a treasure on earth, rather than in heaven.

I would agree with Proverbs 30:8b-9
"give me neither poverty nor riches;
feed me with the food that I need,
or I shall be full, and deny you,
and say, “Who is the Lord?”
or I shall be poor, and steal,
and profane the name of my God."

 

[ray j willings]

All those poor people are having a super time, what with their faith and poverty enjoying their disadvantages.
Good to see all those religious registered company's spreading their wealth around instead of asking for more donations

 

[Jspear]

Well, it's certainly a warning against riches, but I'm not so sure it is a kind of absolute command to be poor.

The Bible is very clear that riches can keep someone away from God. It's clear that a love for money and wealth cannot be reconciled with Christianity, but saying every believer has to live in poverty is in my view another extreme that is not warranted for by the eye of the needle quote. I think it's perfectly acceptable for a believer to be relatively wealthy, if he uses his wealth for good. If a Christian has a nice job and earns a lot of money, good for him, but the Bible certainly warns him to be weary as to what he does with his money, lest he spend his live storing a treasure on earth, rather than in heaven.

I would agree with Proverbs 30:8b-9
"give me neither poverty nor riches;
feed me with the food that I need,
or I shall be full, and deny you,
and say, “Who is the Lord?”
or I shall be poor, and steal,
and profane the name of my God."

Very good post.

 

[RetroActive]

Chapter 2...begins on page 27. Pythagoras Rides Again
http://sayno2legalcrime.info/serpentsky.pdf

A neuroscientist approaches the subject (with trepidation) 21 & 22:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_njf8jwEGRo&index=21&list=PL150326949691B199

 

[rhubroma]

Why does it always have to be so void of nuance with you?

There really isn't any kind of general and absolute command to be poor anywhere in the Bible. But with a little more nuance, you'll find that a lot of Christians will agree with you that Christ's message is diametrically opposed to the modern social paradigm in this age of materialism and consumerism. And you'll find a lot of Christians very worried about the state of Christendom in the western world because this consumerism and materialism has seeped into Christendom and into the lives of many of those who profess to follow Christ.

Don't misunderstand me. My world is full of nuance. But that isn't the point. Mine was just analysis of what the actual example was, and what was actually said.

Now anyone is feel to take it at face value or not, but please let's not deny the facts.

My point has always been historical and I'm well aware that it will be most arduous to reconcile a wandering preacher's life 2000 years ago [granted there is anything historical in it (but I'm willing to concede some validity), though if so it isn't to be gotten from the gospels, which were not written with a "historical intention"], with the iter of contemporary history. However, the paradigm is what it was and attempts at "nuanced" interpretations of such a paradigm (if not gross and wanton falsifications) to assuage today's guilty consciences is both spurious and craven.

It makes me wonder if Christians today even stop to think about the issue of our consumer and growth model and what the Christ actually stood for, or do they simply choose to ignore the elephant in their living rooms? Given that the premise of wealth accumulation is the only citizen's real "moral duty," what are we to make of it? If not the whole system goes into recession: that is the "American dream," in a manner of speaking (though under neoliberalism now gone globel - other than exporting democracy, seems much more of what actually has been sent abroad), becomes extinguished. Thus true value is placed in individuals so called freedom to unlimited capacity to enrichment, over collective responsibility. Would Christ, however, have seen any value in it? Are power and wealth virtuous in themselves, or are they only useful if they are put to the common good? Though since they almost never are isn't it better to aspire to a more principled existence, etc., would rather seem more apropos as Christians, no? Christ docet. No, what seems to be the real objective isn't futhering any political ideal, let alone humanitarian concern, but to maintain and, if possible, further expand one's power and hegemony.

How is it that the social model of today in placing all emphasis on self-realization, individualism and transient material conquest, over community (if anything the Christ was a protagonist of the community of the poor and the weak) can, at the same time, find in this so little, if any, conflict with its Christian ethos; or is that ethos only a mantle to be donned opportunistically, as a superficial cloak, without any regard for the content it conceals? Eh?

At this point is it even proper to speak of Christendom, or is it blasphemy today to do so? Is civilization rather undergoing another fase of transformation into the post-Christendom era?

 

[ray j willings]

Don't misunderstand me. My world is full of nuance. But that isn't the point. Mine was just analysis of what the actual example was, and what was actually said.

Now anyone is feel to take it at face value or not, but please let's not deny the facts.

My point has always been historical and I'm well aware that it will be most arduous to reconcile a wandering preacher's life 2000 years ago (granted there is anything historical in it (but I'm willing to concede it some validity), though if so it isn't to be gotten from the gospels, which were not written with a "historical intention"), with the iter of contemporary history. However, the paradigm is what it was and attempts at "nuanced" interpretations of such a paradigm (if not gross and wanton falsifications) to assuage today's guilty consciences is both spurious and craven.

It makes me wonder if Christians today even stop to think about the issue of our consumer and growth model and what the Christ actually stood for, or do they simply choose to ignore the elephant in their living rooms? Given that the premise of wealth accumulation is the only citizen's real "moral duty," if not the whole system goes into recession: the "American dream," in a manner of speaking (though under neoliberalism now gone globel - other than exporting democracy, seems much more of what actually has been sent abroad.,Thus true value is placed in individuals so called freedom to unlimited capacity to enrichment, over collective responsibility. Would Christ, however, have seen any value in it? Are power and wealth virtuous in themselves, or are they only useful if they are put to the common good? Though since they almost never are isn't it better to aspire to a more principled existence would rather seem more apropos as Christians, no? Christ docet. No, what seems to be the real objective isn't futhering any political ideal, let alone humanitarian concern, but to maintain and, if possible, further expand one's power and hegemony.

How is it that the social model of today in placing all emphasis on self-realization, individualism and transient material conquest, over community (if anything the Christ was a protagonist of the community of the poor and the weak) can, at the same time, find in this so little, if any, conflict with its Christian ethos; or is that ethos only a mantle to be donned opportunistically, as a superficial cloak, without any regard for the content it conceals? Eh?

At this point is it even proper to speak of Christendom, or is it blasphemy today to do so? Is civilization rather undergoing another fase of transformation into the post-Christendom era?

Its not Blasphemy just nonsense and irrelevant. The world is moving on and religion is being left behind.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

How is it that the social model of today in placing all emphasis on self-realization, individualism and transient material conquest, over community (if anything the Christ was a protagonist of the community of the poor and the weak) can, at the same time, find in this so little, if any, conflict with its Christian ethos; or is that ethos only a mantle to be donned opportunistically, as a superficial cloak, without any regard for the content it conceals? Eh?

I guess it depends on how you define 'Christian'. It also depends very much on what country you are from. There are countries in Europe where almost everybody is a member of a church and Christianity is kind more or less automatically a part of their culture (Italy, Poland, Greece etc.). They identify as Christian, without putting much thought to it. Now when I see that 81% of the Italians identifies as Roman-Catholic and when I then see all the problems with corruption and the like I can totally see where you're coming from. Supposedly 81% of the people are Christians but they all participate in the individualistic and materialistic tendencies of our western culture, seemingly without even seeing a tension or a conflict.

But here's the thing; I come from one of the most secular countries in Europe. Relatively few people identify themselves as Christian; but those few that do are more likely to be more engaged with their religion. Where I'm from you can hear Christians complaining about the individualism and the materialism in modern western culture all the time. I mean, they're not preaching a revolution; Christians didn't do that in the 1st century and they don't do it now. But as I said; I agree with you that Christ's message and modern Western individualism and materialism and I fully agree it is in conflict with the Christian ethos. Furthermore I find many Christians agreeing with me in this regard.

At this point is it even proper to speak of Christendom, or is it blasphemy today to do so? Is civilization rather undergoing another fase of transformation into the post-Christendom era?

It depends on what country you are from. The Netherlands where I am from and Belgium where I now live are definitely in a post-Christendom type of era. But for Italy, Poland and the US are not post-Christendom (yet), judging from what I know about those countries.

Its not Blasphemy just nonsense and irrelevant. The world is moving on and religion is being left behind.

Hate to break it to you, but this has been said for a century or two and it's always been false. Religion in general and Christianity in particular is experiencing a spectacular growth in countries like China and Korea.

Maybe Europe and the rest of the Western world are moving on and leaving religion behind, though even that isn't so obvious, but the rest of the world really isn't. Non-western modern countries like Korea also aren't secularizing.

 

[rhubroma]

I guess it depends on how you define 'Christian'. It also depends very much on what country you are from. There are countries in Europe where almost everybody is a member of a church and Christianity is kind more or less automatically a part of their culture (Italy, Poland, Greece etc.). They identify as Christian, without putting much thought to it. Now when I see that 81% of the Italians identifies as Roman-Catholic and when I then see all the problems with corruption and the like I can totally see where you're coming from. Supposedly 81% of the people are Christians but they all participate in the individualistic and materialistic tendencies of our western culture, seemingly without even seeing a tension or a conflict.

But here's the thing; I come from one of the most secular countries in Europe. Relatively few people identify themselves as Christian; but those few that do are more likely to be more engaged with their religion. Where I'm from you can hear Christians complaining about the individualism and the materialism in modern western culture all the time. I mean, they're not preaching a revolution; Christians didn't do that in the 1st century and they don't do it now. But as I said; I agree with you that Christ's message and modern Western individualism and materialism and I fully agree it is in conflict with the Christian ethos. Furthermore I find many Christians agreeing with me in this regard.



It depends on what country you are from. The Netherlands where I am from and Belgium where I now live are definitely in a post-Christendom type of era. But for Italy, Poland and the US are not post-Christendom (yet), judging from what I know about those countries.



Hate to break it to you, but this has been said for a century or two and it's always been false. Religion in general and Christianity in particular is experiencing a spectacular growth in countries like China and Korea.

Maybe Europe and the rest of the Western world are moving on and leaving religion behind, though even that isn't so obvious, but the rest of the world really isn't. Non-western modern countries like Korea also aren't secularizing.

True, Italy is by history a Roman Catholic country, though it is imprecise to talk about Italy, but Italies, just as it is imprecise to talk about Italians, but rather Piemontesi, Toscani, Siciliani and so forth.

While Italians are in fact, by in large, Catholic, they are by no means "religious." Indeed it was Machiavelli who already in the Renaissance said that centuries of Catholicism and the Catholic clergy has driven all religion out of the peoples of Italy. And yet the beauty of this country is largely do to all the Catholic monuments and Catholic artworks, and a certain Catholic mysticism - which came by way of the pagans in antiquity that the Catholic Church was not able to entirely extirpate from Mediterranean culture - that has left an indelible imprint on how the Italian people have always interacted with the Italian landscape. We also have to bear in mind that there are many secularists in Italy as well and that, as it is so often said, the churches today are frequented by old people. They are otherwise basically empty on all but the most important religious feast days. But this is tradition calling more than any real religious vocation.

It is, more or less, the same all over Europe, for which a marked trend of secularism is destined to irrevocably alter traditional European society. Reactionaries such as the Lefebvrists have responded in kind, which itself is proof of the trend. Christianity (taken as a totality with all its various sects) and its Catholic orthodoxy are now thriving only in the third world and America (ironic isn't it). While it is in many palces in mortal competition (when one thinks of Africa, the Near East and South Asia) with Islam. True Slavic Europe, for which the "phenomenon" of Medjugorje provides an exception, so too in certain protestant spheres. Though this is either out of backwardness, or a certain bourgeois self-righteousness and ignorance.

Certainly there are many Christians in Europe, however, within traditional European society we can't say that the prospect of a future Christian West, as it was once known, is the same as it was in the XIX century. That is never coming back and, as such, my calling into question the whole notion of "Christendom" is valid.

I would not take Korea as an example of "modern," though with time, in any case, it too will "catch-up." If there will be enough time and I'm not taking about the Second Coming.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

For Europe it is interesting to note that the secularization is not necessarily happening as was foreseen by modernism though. Don't get me wrong, the current trend is definitely that traditional religion is on the retreat (unfortunately I may add). It's not so much that the modernism of the enlightenment finally seeped down into society at large showing people the irrationality of faith leading thus to secularization not only for the enlightenment philosophers but also for the common people. Actually, I recently learned that the period between 1850 and 1950 saw the highest percentage of church attendance in Europe; so modernism and rationalism have done little to cause secularization, so it seems. I think it's more post-modernism that is causing the secularization trend in recent years. It also isn't really causing a move to a rationalistic naturalistic type of worldview, but rather a relativistic one where there is still plenty of room for non traditional religion. Most people in Europe when they become religiously unaffiliated don't become naturalists and atheists; they still believe in 'something' and there's plenty of room for spirituality as long as it doesn't have to fit the mould of traditional religion.

But yes, it is of course undeniable that in Europe there is a secularization trend, in the sense that people are leaving traditional religion, regardless of what they are leaving it for. The specific dynamics change from country to country and how far the secularization has at the current time advanced are different in each country, but there definitely seems to be a general secularization trend.

I would not take Korea as an example of "modern," though with time, in any case, it too will "catch-up." If there will be enough time and I'm not taking about the Second Coming.

I wasn't talking about modern is the sense of modernism, but just in the general sense of the word. Technologically speaking South-Korea is quite a bit ahead of every European country. When it comes to education, health, income, et cetera it's ahead of most European countries.

 

[Echoes]

If we are referring to the main institutions of our Western countries, the days of Christendom are long gone.

Actually, we'll have to go back to the French Revolution which beheaded the King - which means God's Lieutenant on Earth -, the first attempt to de-Christ France. The Enlightenment/Philosophers of course paved the way for it. When Descartes "We can become the masters and owners of Nature" (6th part of the Discourse on the Method), it was clearly a move away from religion and announced the individualistic, capitalistic society that the French Revolution promoted. It also related to the previous discussion about wealth, since what is wealth if not owning nature.

However during the French Rev., the Christophobes forgot about one thing and that is education. That is how for about a whole century, the French could still produce some great classic authors, while the power escaped them, but they still had schools up until 1901 when the secularists closed them and exiled a lot of priests.

I've recently realised though that in terms of numbers, the French are still a fervently Catholic people (and this is, I think, also valid for all countries that are traditionally Catholic, including Belgium). I didn't realise that before because we don't often get to hear them. The mainstream media are all hard-core anti-Catholic, the whole Parisian Bourgeois microcosm, the world of culture (publishing houses, cinema, etc.; pop music and rock in particular were powerful in promoting satanism, I feel guilty about that because I've been an avid rock fan and still like some bands for the melody only) beside the government, which make it look like a whole secular country (of course they are telling lies, like on the slave trade topic that we discussed the other day) but the common people in the province/countryside have still kept their traditional Catholic values. Even when they are not devoted Christians, they would still be influenced by the Christian ideology.

The main thing now is that the Church has been infested by enemies from the inside, ever since Vatican II, which means that the so-called Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church anymore but a Vatican II sect. The Church is represented by dozens of traditional sedevacantist churches. The main idea is that the Vatican no longer believes in Christianity as a set of values, a doctrine, it's just reduced to an experience that we are/have been living.

A lot of people in France have converted back to Christianity after discovering conferences from traditionalists and sedevacantists, while the current Vatican II sect had disgusted them. It's a great hope. Traditional churches are now full, while Vatican II churches are empty

Hate to break it to you, but this has been said for a century or two and it's always been false. Religion in general and Christianity in particular is experiencing a spectacular growth in countries like China and Korea.

Can we talk about a growth? I have the feeling that religion in those countries never disappeared, despite the Communist regime. Perhaps a growth for Christianity - which is good - but they've always had some sort of Buddhist, Confucianist or Shintoist beliefs I think.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

France is probably (close to being) the most secular country in Europe and indeed they have been for quite a while. But I recently learned - and this quite surprised me - that actually the period of 1850 - 1950 saw the highest rates of church attendance in Europe. So for all its bravado, modernism seems to have done very little in most European countries to bring about secularization. It's only in the last decades of the 20th century under the influence of post-modernistic tendencies that secularization has gotten well underway. It's the post-modern mind that is overly critical with regard to every type of grand scheme of thought or any type of authority that has no place left for traditional religion. Traditional religion has a clear systematized set of doctrines at the base of the content of it's beliefs which doesn't sit well with post-modernism. Modernism might question the truth of these doctrines, but post-modernism doesn't even want such a firm and systematic set of doctrines to stand at the basis of a worldview. The modern man might be seduced by naturalism, but the post-modern man rejects Christianity and puts some type of unorganized individualistic spirituality in its place.

In that regard traditional religion can often offer a firm base for a worldview, that is increasingly lacking in the prevalent cultural worldview of the West, which is more relativistic and shaped by post-modernism. Just as echoes described an interest in traditional Catholicism, in the Netherlands it is traditional Protestantism that survives best in the current milieu. The churches that have separated from the mainline reformed church in the Netherlands during the 19th century because of the increasingly prevalent liberal theology who still hold to the traditional reformed confessions are actually hardly shrinking in the face of secularization. In Dutch media these groups are always portrayed as some backwards fundamentalist group that are really on the verge of extinction; but the fact of the matter is, that they're actually doing much better than the more liberal Protestants. It seems that traditional religion, whether it's Protestant, Catholic offers a very healthy alternative for the extreme skepticism, relativism and individualism of post-modernity. In the Netherlands, it's the churches that have most embraced the prevalent cultural tendencies that are on the verge of extinction, not the ones that have resisted it and have maintained their traditional beliefs.

By the way, we can even see the same tendencies in Islam and Judaism, where the more orthodox movements in these religions seem to be more appealing to new believers and to the youths than the more moderate ones.

Can we talk about a growth? I have the feeling that religion in those countries never disappeared, despite the Communist regime. Perhaps a growth for Christianity - which is good - but they've always had some sort of Buddhist, Confucianist or Shintoist beliefs I think.

It's difficult to say I guess. I think the statistics show an increase of religion in general, but of course there's a whole rather complex world behind these statistics. But I know that in Korea and China even Buddhism has had a kind of 'revival' in recent decades. But of course you can ask the question whether this is a kind of revival of a religious awareness that was still there.

But if I take some statistics for South Korea (admittedly from wikipedia):
for 1962:
5 % Christian
2,6 % Korean Buddhist
92,4% none or other

in 2005:
29,2% Christian
22,8% Korean Buddhist
46,9% none or other

Note that this goes hand in hand with spectacular economic growth. In 1962 South Korea was a poor underdeveloped country coming out of war. But in the following decades South Korea saw major economic growth and development. In the 21st century South Korea is now one of the most wealthy, developed countries in the world, ahead of most European countries. If you place this growth next to the statistics of religion, you see that it has in fact experienced the exact opposite of what the secularization hypothesis predicts.

But indeed in China the situation might be a bit different, because of the prevalence of ancestor worship/folk religion/taoism, even under the communist regime.

 

[rhubroma]

France is probably (close to being) the most secular country in Europe and indeed they have been for quite a while. But I recently learned - and this quite surprised me - that actually the period of 1850 - 1950 saw the highest rates of church attendance in Europe. So for all its bravado, modernism seems to have done very little in most European countries to bring about secularization. It's only in the last decades of the 20th century under the influence of post-modernistic tendencies that secularization has gotten well underway. It's the post-modern mind that is overly critical with regard to every type of grand scheme of thought or any type of authority that has no place left for traditional religion. Traditional religion has a clear systematized set of doctrines at the base of the content of it's beliefs which doesn't sit well with post-modernism. Modernism might question the truth of these doctrines, but post-modernism doesn't even want such a firm and systematic set of doctrines to stand at the basis of a worldview. The modern man might be seduced by naturalism, but the post-modern man rejects Christianity and puts some type of unorganized individualistic spirituality in its place.

In that regard traditional religion can often offer a firm base for a worldview, that is increasingly lacking in the prevalent cultural worldview of the West, which is more relativistic and shaped by post-modernism. Just as echoes described an interest in traditional Catholicism, in the Netherlands it is traditional Protestantism that survives best in the current milieu. The churches that have separated from the mainline reformed church in the Netherlands during the 19th century because of the increasingly prevalent liberal theology who still hold to the traditional reformed confessions are actually hardly shrinking in the face of secularization. In Dutch media these groups are always portrayed as some backwards fundamentalist group that are really on the verge of extinction; but the fact of the matter is, that they're actually doing much better than the more liberal Protestants. It seems that traditional religion, whether it's Protestant, Catholic offers a very healthy alternative for the extreme skepticism, relativism and individualism of post-modernity. In the Netherlands, it's the churches that have most embraced the prevalent cultural tendencies that are on the verge of extinction, not the ones that have resisted it and have maintained their traditional beliefs.

By the way, we can even see the same tendencies in Islam and Judaism, where the more orthodox movements in these religions seem to be more appealing to new believers and to the youths than the more moderate ones.

It's difficult to say I guess. I think the statistics show an increase of religion in general, but of course there's a whole rather complex world behind these statistics. But I know that in Korea and China even Buddhism has had a kind of 'revival' in recent decades. But of course you can ask the question whether this is a kind of revival of a religious awareness that was still there. In short other voices were given their time on society's stage.

But if I take some statistics for South Korea (admittedly from wikipedia):
for 1962:
5 % Christian
2,6 % Korean Buddhist
92,4% none or other

in 2005:
29,2% Christian
22,8% Korean Buddhist
46,9% none or other

Note that this goes hand in hand with spectacular economic growth. In 1962 South Korea was a poor underdeveloped country coming out of war. But in the following decades South Korea saw major economic growth and development. In the 21st century South Korea is now one of the most wealthy, developed countries in the world, ahead of most European countries. If you place this growth next to the statistics of religion, you see that it has in fact experienced the exact opposite of what the secularization hypothesis predicts.

But indeed in China the situation might be a bit different, because of the prevalence of ancestor worship/folk religion/taoism, even under the communist regime.

You confuse "secularization," with the process that brought it about. Naturally church attendance between the XIX and XX centuries remained high, however, it was precisely the longue durée effects of what this period begot as far as the taking off the mantel of obscurantism is concerned. Positivism and the exact sciences only partly explain this, the effects of which, however, over time loosened the clutches of religion in our culture, or at any rate no longer permitted religion to have the final say. This is a major conquest though, considering the theocratic states.

Now today's great dilemma is how to replace such obscurantism with something moderately more enlightened. However, the mad dash to the shopping malls on the urban periphery doesn't seem to qualify. Rather what one finds today is the persistence of the one, however enfeebled, and the vapid growing superficialization of society.

It is, though, singular that the "greatest" period of religiosity among Europeans coincided with the most devestating means of industrialized "Wermacht." Now I don't say this is the fault of religion, of course, however, one indoctrination would seem to flow out of the other yes. If we haven't become wiser, well at least there has been peace among us since the collapse of old, traditional "ways of life" including the obscurantist one. The folly that came with them, in other words, has partly led to the disillusionment that also emptied the churches.

As far as the traditionalists go, every period of epochal change has its reactionaries.

 

[ray j willings]

I guess it depends on how you define 'Christian'. It also depends very much on what country you are from. There are countries in Europe where almost everybody is a member of a church and Christianity is kind more or less automatically a part of their culture (Italy, Poland, Greece etc.). They identify as Christian, without putting much thought to it. Now when I see that 81% of the Italians identifies as Roman-Catholic and when I then see all the problems with corruption and the like I can totally see where you're coming from. Supposedly 81% of the people are Christians but they all participate in the individualistic and materialistic tendencies of our western culture, seemingly without even seeing a tension or a conflict.

But here's the thing; I come from one of the most secular countries in Europe. Relatively few people identify themselves as Christian; but those few that do are more likely to be more engaged with their religion. Where I'm from you can hear Christians complaining about the individualism and the materialism in modern western culture all the time. I mean, they're not preaching a revolution; Christians didn't do that in the 1st century and they don't do it now. But as I said; I agree with you that Christ's message and modern Western individualism and materialism and I fully agree it is in conflict with the Christian ethos. Furthermore I find many Christians agreeing with me in this regard.



It depends on what country you are from. The Netherlands where I am from and Belgium where I now live are definitely in a post-Christendom type of era. But for Italy, Poland and the US are not post-Christendom (yet), judging from what I know about those countries.



Hate to break it to you, but this has been said for a century or two and it's always been false. Religion in general and Christianity in particular is experiencing a spectacular growth in countries like China and Korea.

Maybe Europe and the rest of the Western world are moving on and leaving religion behind, though even that isn't so obvious, but the rest of the world really isn't. Non-western modern countries like Korea also aren't secularizing.

You don't have to HATE to break it to me
I'm sure your right but as the world is getting a lot smaller thanks to technology and more and more real/factual information is available the world is becoming more secular. We know religion is on the decline in Europe and even in the states we are seeing a decrease of religion and an increase in secular thinking. if you have done with due diligence a real study then you will see overall religion is decreasing. I feel that this is a good thing as explaining things we don't understand by using a fictional supernatural entity to explain them is absurd IMO.

 

[Jspear]

You don't have to HATE to break it to me
I'm sure your right but as the world is getting a lot smaller thanks to technology and more and more real/factual information is available the world is becoming more secular. We know religion is on the decline in Europe and even in the states we are seeing a decrease of religion and an increase in secular thinking. if you have done with due diligence a real study then you will see overall religion is decreasing. I feel that this is a good thing as explaining things we don't understand by using a fictional supernatural entity to explain them is absurd IMO.

I don't think it is such a good thing. As "religion" becomes less and less popular, I think you will find that morality will go down as well - In fact it already has. The farther we get from God the more immoral our society will become.

 

[ray j willings]

It depends on your moral stance . Does Nicki Minaj offend you? Does Nigel Farage offend you?

if you do your due diligence you will find on a world scale that all crimes are coming down. Woman now realise that they do not have to be subjected to being 2nd rate citizens. Rape and abuse is down. Murder is down. For most being gay is not an issue. Someone having a different skin colour other than their own is not an issue. I do not need a book to tell me these things. I don't need a book to tell me not to hate to tell me what to fear. Prejudice comes from fear. I don't live in fear.
The main areas for concern where we do have wars going on right now involve fanatical/tribal religious groups who cannot live in peace.
If the only way you get your moral compass from is a fictional book and not from the fact that you cannot figure right from wrong out for yourself is very sad IMO.

 

[Jspear]

It depends on your moral stance . Does Nicki Minaj offend you? Does Nigel Farage offend you?

if you do your due diligence you will find on a world scale that all crimes are coming down. Woman now realise that they do not have to be subjected to being 2nd rate citizens. Rape and abuse is down. Murder is down. For most being gay is not an issue. Someone having a different skin colour other than their own is not an issue. I do not need a book to tell me these things. I don't need a book to tell me not to hate to tell me what to fear. Prejudice comes from fear. I don't live in fear.
The main areas for concern where we do have wars going on right now involve fanatical/tribal religious groups who cannot live in peace.
If the only way you get your moral compass from is a fictional book and not from the fact that you cannot figure right from wrong out for yourself is very sad IMO.

Evil still abounds though. Biblical morals teaches both men and woman to be appropriate in both manner and conversation, so yes Nicki Minaj offends me. Murder and Rape is down. AWESOME!! But pornography is still HUGE. Families being destroyed by divorce. Simply there is still plenty of sin and pain in the world and taking away God will only makes things digress at a faster rate.